-NRLF 


6391 


.U•^ 


Studies  In  Archaism 


IN 


Aulus  Gellius 


WALTER  EUGENE  FOSTER 


y 


STUDIES    IN    ARCHAISM 

IN 

AULUS   GELLIUS 


By 

WALTER  EUGENE  FOSTER 
II 


Submitted   in   Partial   Fulfilment   of   the   Requirements 

for  the  Degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy 

in  the 

Faculty  of  Philosophy 

Columbia   University 


NEW    YORK 

I     9    I     2 


UXORI  CARISSIMAE 
ETHEL  FOSTER 


254402 


STUDIES  IN  ARCHAISM  IN  AULUS  GELLIUS 
INTRODUCTION 

The  following  pages,  which  have  to  do  primarily  with 
archaisms  in  the  vocabulary  and  the  syntax  of  the  Noctes 
Atticae  of  Aulus  Gellius,  are  intended  to  be,  in  general,  sup- 
plementary to  the  work  which  has  already  been  done  in  this 
field  by  Professor  Charles  Knapp,  of  Columbia  University.^ 
Not  only  has  Professor  Knapp  aided  the  author  of  this  paper 
with  suggestions  and  encouragement,  but  he  has,  as  well,  most 
generously  turned  over  no  inconsiderable  amount  of  material 
which  he  had  gathered  from  time  to  time,  with  the  intention, 
at  some  later  date,  of  publishing  it  and  thus  completing  his 
studies  in  the  archaisms  of  Gellius. - 

An  entirely  independent  examination  of  the  material  has, 
however,  been  made.  In  some  instances,  the  results  have  been 
merely  corroborative,  in  some  supplementary,  and  again  in 
others  corrective.  In  the  course  of  the  investigation,  again, 
certain  phases  of  the  archaistic  elements  in  Gellius  which  had 
been  either  entirely  overlooked  or  merely  hinted  at  by  previous 
investigators  receive  due  emphasis. 

The  Introduction  to  this  paper  (pages  1-28)  deals  with 
certain  general  questions  relating  to  the  archaistic  movement 
in  the  second  century  A.D.  and.  in  particular,  with  the  varying 
relations  of  Pronto,  Gellius,  and  Apuleius  to  that  movement. 
In  Part  I  (pages  29-47),  which  deals  with  archaisms  of  form 
and  vocabulary,  the  lists  given  are  intended  to  be  supple- 
mentary to  the  lists  published  by  Professor  Knapp,^  or  cor- 

'  See  the  Bibliography  below,  page  65,  s.  v.  Knapp. 

'  It  should  be  noted  that  it  is  impossible  to  study  archaism  in 
Gellius  without  at  the  same  time  examining  carefully  Fronto  and 
Apuleius.  For  the  relation  of  Gellius  to  Fronto  see  below,  pages  16- 
20;  for  Gellius  and  Apuleius  see  below,  21-23. 

'  Drisler  Studies,  141-146.  For  the  citations  in  this  paper  see  the 
Bibliographical  Appendix,  pages  65-67  under  the  names  of  the  authors 
of  the  books  and  articles  cited  or  quoted  (some  few  books  or  articles, 
cited  or  quoted  but  once  or  twice,  have  not  been  listed  there;  in  all 
such  cases  the  book  or  article  will  be  sufficiently  identified  in  text  or 


4  Archaism  in  Aldus  Gellius 

rective  of  those  lists.  Part  II  (pages  48-64)  is  devoted  to  an 
attempt  to  set  forth  in  full  the  archaic  qualities  of  Gellius's 
syntax,  a  task  which  no  one  else,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  has 
essayed. 

It  is  not  the  writer's  purpose  to  attempt,  in  any  compre- 
hensive way,  an  explanation  of  the  intense  archaising  fervor 
which  characterized  the  literary  spirit  of  the  second  Chris- 
tian century.*  Nor,  indeed,  is  such  a  comprehensive  survey 
any  longer  necessary.  Nevertheless,  some  special  remarks 
will  be  offered  a  little  later  (pages  5-6).  For  the  present  a 
very  rapid  resume  of  the  history  of  Latin  literature  will  be 
made,  to  pave  the  way  to  what  is  said  below  (page  5)  about 
the  reaction  in  the  time  of  Gellius  and  Fronto  in  favor  of  the 
Latin  of  the  archaic  period.  First,  we  have  the  early,  crude 
efforts  of  the  pioneers  who  are  striking  out  for  themselves 
new  paths  in  untrodden  fields.  The  qualities  of  freshness  and 
vigor  in  part,  at  least,  compensate  for  what  may  be  lacking 
in  perfection  of  form  and  in  workmanlike  finish.  Next  comes 
the  classic,  or  the  golden  age.  Now  is  the  high  tide  of  national 
life.  In  this  period,  poetry  and  prose  reach  a  perfection  be- 
yond which,  except  in  rare  instances,  the  genius  of  the  race  is 
unable  to  go.  Dignity  of  manner  is  combined  with  freshness 
•^  and  originality  of  theme.  With  the  close  of  the  period  of  ex- 
pansion, there  was  a  tendency  towards  the  fixed  and  the  con- 
ventional in  all  spheres  of  life.  This  tendency  is  marked  in 
the  realm  of  letters. 

There  is,  therefore,  in  turn,  ushered  in  now  the  age  which, 
taking  the  great  classical  masterpieces  as  models,^  pays  less 
and  less  attention  to  substance,  and  seeks  more  and  more  ex- 
quisite refinement  of  manner  and  uniformity  of  method.  In 
the  first   Christian  century,  the  opponents  of  antiquarianism 

footnotes).  The  abbreviations  employed  in  the  citations  will  also  be 
found  listed  in  their  alphabetical  places  in  the  Bibliographical  Appendix. 

*For  discussions  of  this  matter,  see  e.g.  Vogel,  19-22;  Mackail,  233 
ff. ;  Teuffel,  §345 ;  Kretschmann,  2-4 ;  Schmalz,  664-665 ;  Stolz  i.  §  36 ; 
Nettleship,  Lectures  and  Essays  (First  Series),  279;  Piechotta,  5  ff. ; 
Brock,  25-35,  181-183;  E.  Norden,  344  ff.,  361  ff. ;  and  especially  Drisler 
Studies,  126-141    (with  literature  there  cited). 

"Duff,  30. 


ArcJiaism  in  Aldus  Gcllins  5 

were  supreme.*'  Here  the  goal  is  symmetry,  harmony,  ele- 
gance ;  but  after  this  refining  process  has  been  carried  to  the 
extreme  limit  a  reaction  sets  in. 

In  Rome  the  reaction  against  this  super-refinement,  under 
the  leadership  of  such  men  as  Fronto  and  Gellius,  contributed 
no  doubt  to  that  reversion  to  the  preclassical  manner^  which  is 
the  marked  characteristic  of  the  Latin  writings  of  the  second 
Christian  century.  Cato,  Ennius,^  and  Plautus  were  studied 
with  diligence,  and  the  more  vigorous  but  simpler  style  be- 
came, for  a  time,  especially  under  Hadrian  and  his  immediate 
successors,  the  vogue  among  the  literary  classes. 

It  would  be  instructive  and  interesting  if  we  could  discover 
in  full  the  forces  at  work  which  produced  men  of  the  type 
of  Fronto,  Gellius,  and  Apuleius,  men  who  differed  so  widely 
in  their  temperaments  and  literary  gifts,  and  yet,  in  spite  of 
their  marked  differences,  have  a  general  likeness,  in  this  one 
particular:  the  archaic  quahties  of  their  style. 

Some  of  these  forces,  probably — nay  beyond  doubt — the 
most  important,  in  the  case  of  Gellius,  at  least,  have  been  set 
forth  in  the  views  of  the  writers  named  above,  note  4, 
and  in  the  authorities  cited  by  them.'-*  These  authorities,  and 
others,  lay  stress,  and  rightly,  on  conscious  and  deliberate  imi- 
tation of  the  earlier  authors  by  the  writers  of  the  second 
Christian  century. 

There  is,  however,  another  factor  which,  though  noted  by 
some  scholars,^*'  has  not  received,  it  seems  to  me,  the  attention 
which  it  deserves.  I  have  in  mind  a  kind  of  unconscious  and 
wholly  natural  archaism,  which,  I  think,  was  inevitable  to  a 
writer  born  and  reared  in  Africa,  as  Apuleius  surely  was,^^ 

*  Xettleship,  Lectures  and  Essays  (Second  Series),  74;  Drisler 
Studies,  137-138;  Bernhardy,  327  ff. 

'  Stolz,  §  36;  Nettleship,  Essays  in  Latin  Literature   (First  Series), 
279  ff. ;  Duff,  31. 
"Vahlen,  Ixxx  ff. 

*  I  do  not  regard  Gellius  as  specifically  an  African  writer ;  see  be- 
low, note  51  ;  also  pages  14-16  in  general. 

"Compare  e.g.  Cooper,  xxvii  ff.  In  Piechotta,  i-io,  a  good  discus- 
sion of  the  matter,  the  various  authorities  are  cited  and  their  views 
considered. 

"See  e.g.  Flor.  §  18  (page  35,  Helm). 


6  Archaism  in  Aulus  Gellius 

because  of  the  conditions  under  which  Latin  became  the  speech 
of  Africa  and  remained  in  use  there. 

A  priori  there  seems,  to  me  at  least,  to  be  no  valid  reason 
why  the  Latin  language  in  Africa,  in  the  second  Christian 
century,  should  not  already  have  developed  along  lines  such 
as  resulted  in  a  speech,  still  Latin,  to  be  sure,  but  yet  distinct 
in  a  variety  of  important  particulars  from  the  Latin  language 
as  it  had  developed  during  the  same  period  in  Italy,  and  par- 
ticularly at  Rome.^-  Analogies  and  comparisons  rarely  prove 
anything,  though  they  may  shed  a  flood  of  light  upon  the 
question  at  issue. 

Ireland,  for  example,  has  been  under  English  domination 
for  four  centuries.  Yet  the  language  of  Ireland  to-day,  though 
officially  English,  varies  through  countless  gradations  from 
pure  English  to  Gaelic.  Even  in  a  country  so  small,  so  near 
England,  and  so  easy  of  access,  so  often  visited  by  residents 
of  England,  with  so  many  of  its  own  people  visiting  England, 
the  native  language  still  leaves  its  impress,  not  only  on  the 
oral  speech,  but  on  literature.  For  example,  the  numerous 
ballads  of  Ireland^^  written  even  within  the  last  century^* 
furnish  a  rich  field  for  the  student  of  the  early  Gaelic  lan- 
guage and  literature. 

The  Scotchman  usually  betrays  his  nationality  in  his  speech. 
Furthermore,  the  Gaelic  has  left  its  impress  on  the  later 
literary  products ;  for  example,  not  only  many  of  the  poems  of 
Robert  Burns,  but  comparatively  recent  works  of  literature 
show  the  influence  of  the  ballad.^'* 

In  Canada  there  is  a  rich  store  of  ballad  literature  in  a 
patois  which  is  neither  French  nor  English  but  a  curious  com- 
mingling of  both.^"'    To  one  who  has  travelled  in  Brittany,  and 

"Duff,  27,  says:  "If  we  pass  to  the  fourth  century  A.D.,  it  is  not 
for  a  moment  to  be  thought  that  African  Latin  was  identical  with 
that  spoken  on  the  Rhine  or  the  Danube". 

"  See  Hayes,  The  Ballads  of  Ireland,  Introduction,  13-14. 

"See  The  International  Cyclopaedia,  under  Irish  (Gaelic)  Language 
and  Literature. 

^°  Child's  English  and  Scottish  Popular  Ballads  is  a  great  work  on 
the  subject.     See  also  Eyre-Todd,  Scottish  Ballad  Poetry,  29-34. 

"See  Henry  Drummond,  The  Habitant    (New  York,   1897). 


Archaism  i)i  .lulus  Gellius  7 

noted  the  dialect  spoken  there,  which  differs  so  markedly  from 
Parisian  French,  surely  the  claim  that  there  was  a  marked 
difference  between  African  Latin  and  Roman  Latin  would 
cause  no  surprise. 

We  need  not  go,  however,  far  afield  to  find  examples  of 
archaic  words  and  usages  in  language.  In  out-of-the-way 
parts  of  our  own  country,  which  lie  outside  the  sweep  of  the 
great  currents  of  our  modern  life,  survivals  from  earlier  times 
have  for  centuries  maintained  themselves  almost  unchanged. ^^ 
Thus  in  the  less  frequented  parts  of  Virginia  are  heard,  to 
this  day,  words  which  have  been  obsolete  for  two  centuries  or 
more,  but  were  current  when  the  cavaliers  of  the  Elizabethan 
period  settled  in  the  New  World.  Many  archaic  words  and 
phrases  may  still  be  heard  among  the  New  England  hills. 

If,  in  spite  of  the  railroad,  the  telegraph,  the  daily,  weekly, 
and  monthly  publications,  such  differences  of  language,  dif- 
ferences which,  in  some  instances,  amount  practically  to  dif- 
ferent dialects,  can  maintain  themselves  or  develop  in  our  own 
country,  there  seems  to  be  no  a  priori  ground  for  asserting 
that  the  Latin  of  the  African  province  did  not  have  marked 
qualities  of  its  own  which  differentiated  it  from  Latin  in  other 
parts  of  the  empire,  and,  more  particularly,  from  the  Latin  at 
the  capital.  On  the  contrary  the  probabilities  all  point  to  such 
a  variation. ^^ 

Africa  became  a  Roman  province  in  146  B.C.  From  that 
time  on,  the  official  language  was  Latin. ^^  The  Roman  soldiers 
who  brought  Latin  into  Africa  did  not  bring  with  them  the 
polished  speech  of  the  Scipionic  circle.  The  rugged  speech  of 
Plautus  would  more  nearly  correspond  to  the  vernacular  of 
the  Roman  conquerors.-"  The  Latin  which  was  first  carried 
to  Carthage  was  thus  still  highly  archaic."^ 

In  this  province,  separated  from  Rome  by  a  sea  voyage,  if 

"See  Lodge  (entire  article):  Cooper,  xxviii,  and  note  3:  Brock.  26, 
note  3. 

"  Cooper,  xxi-xxx  ;  Olcott,  xv-xxi. 
"Kubler,  161. 

**  Cooper,  xxvi  f.,  and  authorities  cited  there. 
"  Ott,  Neue  Jahr.,  lo;.     767 ;  Cooper  xxxv. 


8  Archaism  in  Aldus  Gelliiis 

we  may  disregard  the  Roman  governors  and  their  staffs,  whose 
influence  upon  the  Latin  language  as  spoken  and  written  in 
Africa  must  have  been  so  sHght  as  to  be  practically  negligible, 
in  addition  to  the  legionaries,  the  peasants  and  the  traders 
constituted  the  principal  Latin  and  Roman  elements  of  the 
population.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that,  while  the  literary 
language  and  the  sermo  cotidiamis  of  the  cultivated  classes  at 
Rome  were  relatively  unimportant  factors  in  the  development 
of  the  sermo  Africus,  the  influence  of  the  sermo  plebeius  was 
very  great.  That  the  sermo  Africus  abounds  in  plebeian  ele- 
ments is,  then,  to  be  expected.  To  the  cultivated  classes  at 
Rome  the  sermo  Africus  would  seem  at  once  plebeian  and 
archaic.  ^^ 

At  Rome,  apparently,  it  was  a  recognized  fact  that  the 
people  from  different  provinces  of  the  empire  had  peculiarities 
or  tricks  of  speech  which  betrayed  the  place  of  their  nativity.^' 
Asinius  Pollio's  criticism  of  Livy's  Patavinitas'^*  is  well  known. 
It  is  important  to  note  in  this  connection  that,  in  the  opinion 
of  some  scholars  at  least,  this  criticism  was  aimed,  not  at  the 
poetical  coloring  of  Livy's  style,  but  at  his  use  of  foreign 
words. ^^  Lucilius  in  a  similar  manner  had  charged  Vectius 
with  "Praenestinity".-® 

"For  the  intimate  relationship  existing  between  the  plebeian  and 
the  archaic  see  below,  pages  9-10.  It  is  interesting  in  this  connection 
to  recall  the  extent  to  which  the  language  of  Cicero's  letters  reproduces 
the  language  of  Plautus  (see  e.g.  Tyrrell,  Cicero  in  his  Letters,  Ixxii- 
Ixxviii).  If  in  Italy  itself  the  sermo  cotidianus  of  the  cultured  could 
still  in  Cicero's  time  so  strongly  resemble  the  Latin  of  Plautus's  day, 
surely,  keeping  in  mind  Roman  conservatism,  we  need  find  no  diffi- 
culty in  believing  that  the  Latin  language  as  spoken  in  Africa  for  long 
centuries  retained  evidences  of  its  origin,  as  the  plebeian  speech  of 
soldiers,  traders,  and  the  like,  of  the  second  century  B.C. 

^  Cicero,  Pro  Arch.  26,  charges  the  poets  from  Cordova  with  a 
foreign  brogue;  see  also  Spartianus  (Vit.  Sept.  Sev.  19):  sed  Afrum 
quiddam  usque  ad  senectutem  sonans.  Jerome  (Ep.  1.30.5)  mentions 
the  stridor  Punicus;  Cyprian  (Ep.  25)  remarks:  Latinitas  et  regioni- 
bus  mutatur  et  tempore. 

"See  Quint.,  Inst.  Or.  1.5.56;  8.1.2-3. 

^See  e.g.  Duff,  639,  note  i.  For  this  view  Quint.  8.1.2-3  makes 
strongly. 

"Quint.,  Inst.  Or.  1.5.56.     See  here  Olcott,  xvii-xviii. 


Archaism  in  Aiiliis  Gcllius  9 

On  the  foregoing  pages  (6-9)  we  have  been  dealing  with  a 
priori  considerations.  That  African  Latin  does  in  fact  display 
marked  peculiarities  has  been  shown  at  length  by  competent 
scholars,  after  careful  investigation,  and  full  consideration  of 
the  opposing  view,  long  warmly  urged  in  certain  quarters. 
References  may  be  made  here  to  the  discussions  of  Cooper, 
xxi-xlvi,  passim;  Olcott,  xv-xxi ;  and  Kiibler,  161  ff.  Cooper, 
xlvi,  sums  up  his  elaborate  discussion  with  a  brief  summary 
of  peculiarities  in  word-formation  "which  are  now  generally 
recognized  as  characteristic  of  the  African  writers".  With 
his  results  Olcott,  page  xxi,  and  Kiibler,  161  ff.,  are  in  sub- 
stantial accord.  Cooper,  xlv-xlvi,  and  Kiibler,  202,  emphasize 
the  plebeian  and  the  archaic  elements.-' 

The  intimate  relationship,  which  often  approximates  iden- 
tity, that  exists  between  the  plebeian  and  the  archaic  Latin 
requires  no  demonstration  here.-®  It  is  precisely  this  identity 
that  makes  any  study  of  archaism  so  difficult.  Some  have 
been  so  impressed  with  the  Plautine  qualities  in  Apuleius  that 
they  have  not  hesitated  to  assert  and  to  attempt  to  prove  that 
Apuleius  borrowed  wholesale  from  Plautus  words-^  and  syn- 

^  In  his  edition  of  the  Cupid  and  Psyche  episode  of  the  Metamor- 
phoses of  Apuleius  (1910),  Mr.  L.  C.  Purser  discusses  elaborately  the 
style  and  language  of  Apuleius  (Ixx-c).  On  page  Ixxxiv  he  describes, 
in  vigorous  terms,  as  wholly  discredited  the  doctrine  that  there  was  a 
special  Latin  style  which  might  properly  be  labelled  Africanism ;  he 
thinks  this  "phantom  .  .  .  may  be  considered  as  finally  laid  to  rest  by 
the  crushing  chapter  of  E.  Norden,  Kunstprosa,  pp.  588-598".  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  Norden  does  not  deny  (see  588)  that  there  was  an 
African  Latin  in  the  sphere  of  language  (in  phonetics,  use  of  words, 
and  syntax)  ;  he  does,  indeed,  add  that,  for  the  most  part,  the  views 
current  on  these  subjects  seem  to  him  "vorliiufig  mehr  oder  weniger 
problematisch",  but  he  concludes  with  the  words :  "Doch  das  geht 
mich  hier  nicht  an  :  ich  habe  es  mit  denen  zu  thun,  die  von  einem 
afrikanischen  Stil  sprechen".  Norden's  discussion,  there- 
fore, does  not  cross  the  lines  of  the  present  paper  at  all.  Brock,  164 
flF.,  also  is  not  pertinent  to  our  discussion. 

^  For  an  admirable  discussion  of  this  important  problem  see  Cooper, 
xxi-xxx,  with  footnotes.  See  also  Knapp,  151  (s.v.  lac),  155-156  (s.v. 
asf^er)iabilis),  157   (s.v.  co)iiplusculus) ,  162,  etc. 

"  Desertine,  3. 


10  Archaism  in  Aldus  Gcllius 

tactical  usages.^"  But  while  Desertine  confines  himself  tc 
illustrating  by  examples  the  many  striking  echoes,  resemb- 
lances, and  identities  between  Plautine  and  Apuleian  vocabu- 
lary and  syntax,  he  is  well  aware  that  Plautus  is  only  one  of 
many  of  the  older  writers^^  of  whose  works  Apuleius  con- 
tains so  many  reminiscences. 

It  is  important  to  note  that  the  Metamorphoses  are  most 
strikingly  plebeian  (and  archaic)  in  quality.  The  fact  that 
certain  of  Apuleius's  writings,  the  Apologia  and  philosophical 
works,  for  example,  are  written  in  a  style  which  much  more 
nearly  approximates  the  classic  norm,^-  has  been  used  as  an 
argument  to  support  the  theory  that  Apuleius's  archaisms  in 
the  Metamorphoses  are  entirely  the  results  of  intentional  imi- 
tation of  the  ancients,  by  the  use  of  which  he  aims  to  give  to 
this  work  an  atmosphere  of  strangeness,  and  perhaps  of 
mystery.  If  we  could  be  sure  of  the  chronological  order  of 
the  composition  of  the  different  works,  we  could  discuss  the 
matter  more  satisfactorily.^^  Admitting  the  difficulties  in  the 
way  of  definite  knowledge  as  to  the  time  of  composition,  we 
may  still  hold  that  both  the  subject  matter  and  the  style  of  the 
Metamorphoses  seem  more  likely  to  be  from  the  hand  of  an 
author  in  the  early  flush  of  youth.  The  philosophical  works 
appear  to  belong  rather  to  his  maturer  years.  Whether  the 
Metamorphoses  were  written  before  his  other  extant  works 
or  not  (they  may  well  have  come  from  his  brain  when  it  was 
riotous  with  the  vivid  imaginings  of  youth),  one  is  on  con- 
servative ground  who  maintains  that  in  writing  these  tales,  a 
work  not  intended  for  small  coteries  of  scholars,  Apuleius 
allowed  himself  greater  freedom,  giving  full  rein  to  his  fancy, 
using  the  words  and  phrases  with  which  his  fertile  mind 
teemed,  and  not  circumscribing  himself  by  classic  canons. 
A  popular  book,    for  general   circulation  among  all   classes, 

^*Leky,  5  ff.  For  a  more  detailed  consideration  of  Leky's  views,  see 
below,  pages  23-26. 

"  See  Desertine,  5  f. ;  Helm's  Praefatio  to  Flor.,  xxii  ff. 

^  Brock,  185,  note  i. 

^  Helm,  in  Praefatio  to  the  Florida,  x  f.,  discusses  the  matter ;  see 
also  Teuffel,  §  367.1 ;  Purser,  xv-xxi,  evidently  regards  the  Metamor- 
phoses as  an  early  work. 


Archaism  in  Aiihis  Gcllius  ii 

recounting  the  supposedly  contemporaneous  adventures  of  the 
hero,  who  often  is  strangely  confused  with  the  author  him- 
self, would  hardly  have  been  written  in  a  style  which,  because 
of  hundreds  of  words  really  rare  and  obsolete,  would  make 
every  page  seem  not  only  unfamiliar  but  often  almost  unin- 
telligible. To  me,  at  least,  the  more  natural  view  of  the  mat- 
ter is  that  in  the  Metamorphoses  we  have,  on  the  whole,  the 
language  and  style  natural  to  Apuleius,  the  resultant  of  birth, 
training,  and  his  own  natural  literary  gifts. ^*  Of  course,  we 
must  not  forget  that  his  training  included  a  wide  reading  in 
the  Latin  classics.  His  quotations  from  the  old  masters  of 
Latin  and  his  allusions  to  them  prove  how  intimate  was  his 
knowledge  of  their  works. ^^ 

Miss  Brock,^^  however,  takes  a  position  almost  diametrically 
opposed  to  the  views  outlined  above.  Many  of  her  assertions 
seem  to  lack  verification  and  consistency.  She  sometimes 
brushes  aside  as  trivial  and  hardly  worthy  of  her  serious  con- 
sideration the  opinions  of  scholars  who  have  devoted  years  of 
study  and  research  to  this  field.  In  general,  it  may  fairly  be 
said  that  she  gives  insufficient  evidence  in  support  of  her  con- 
clusions ;  sometimes  she  fails  to  give  any  evidence  at  all.^^  A 
few  quotations  will  disclose  her  point  of  view.  On  page  178, 
we  read:  "As  far  as  direct  evidence  as  to  specific  African- 
isms goes,  there  is  nothing  to  suggest  that  the  Latin  of  Africa 
was  in  any  way  peculiar".  This  conclusion  is  reached  in  spite 
of  the  evidence  cited  by  the  author  herself,  174-178!   Note  the 

"But  see  Brock,  ^2.  Purser,  Ixxiii,  makes  "Apuleius  .  .  .  — at  least 
in  the  Metamorphoses  and  the  Florida— the  most  signal  representative 
of  the  Asianic  manner". 

"  See  below,  pages  22-22,. 

'*  Studies  in  Fronto  and  His  Age,  163  ff.  I  give  so  much  space  to 
Miss  Brock's  work,  not  so  much  because  of  the  importance  of  her 
book,  as  because  it  is  the  latest  discussion  of  the  subject.  The  very 
elaborateness  of  her  treatment  might  well,  in  itself,  give  to  her  book, 
in  the  opinion  of  the  casual  observer,  a  weight  which  it  does  not 
deserve. 

"See  e.g.  174,  the  discussion  of  the  language  of  Vitruvius.  Miss 
Brock  shows  here  no  knowledge  whatever  of  Professor  Morris  Hickcy 
Morgan's  important  studies  in  the  language  of  \'itruvius. 


12  Archaism  in  Aulus  Gellius 

following  from  178-179:  "It  is  possible  to  collect,  from  the 
extant  writings  of  African  aiUhors,  a  number  of  usages,  sty- 
listic and  linguistic,  which  occur  first  or  chiefly  in  writers  of 
African  birth,  and  some  which  occur  solely  in  such  writers". 
Statements  such  as  the  following  on  page  182  do  not  require 
comment:  "In  other  words,  we  are  to  suppose  that  the  Afri- 
cans who  spoke  and  wrote  Latin  spoke  and  wrote  it  after  the 
manner  of  Plautus  and  Cato  right  on  till  the  second  century 
A.D.,  and  that,  therefore,  when  they  began  to  have  a  literature^ 
that  literature  was  naturally  archaic.  The  theory  is  so  im- 
probable that  it  would  seem  almost  unnecessary  to  refute  it, 
were  it  not  soberly  put  forth  by  such  eminent  scholars  as 
Wolfflin  and  Monceaux,  who  urge  as  modern  parallels  the 
history  of  French  in  Canada  or  of  English  in  the  United 
States". ^^  Again,  on  pages  183-184,  we  read:  "One  scholar 
has  actually  claimed  to  determine  the  condition  of  vulgar 
Latin  at  the  moment  of  each  provincial  conquest  by  the  specific 
traits  of  the  language  spoken  in  the  various  countries  to-day, 
.  .  .  The  whole  theory  arose  from  an  erroneous  and  far- 
fetched attempt  to  explain  the  archaistic  movement".  Such  a 
theory  is,  however,  still  held  by  competent  scholars,^^  and  I 
fail  to  discover  any  adequate  refutation  of  it  in  Miss  Brock's 
book.  A  final  quotation  from  184-185  must  suffice:  "But  the 
greater  proportion  of  archaisms  in  the  conscious  archaists, 
such  as  Fronto,  Apuleius,  Aulus  Gellius,  and  Arnobius,  found 
acceptance  not  because  they  were  still  living  words  on  African 
lips,  but  because  they  were  sacred  by  reason  of  their  appear- 
ance in  the  old  Latin  literature,  while  on  the  other  hand  such 
archaisms  as  were  likewise  living  vulgarisms  were  not  peculiar 
to  Africa,  but  formed  part  of  the  popular  speech  wherever 
Latin  was  spoken".**' 

Such  sweeping  statements  as  the  above  demand  careful  veri- 
fication. No  adequate  verification,  however,  appears ;  the  in- 
complete lists  of  words  on  pages  186-254  present  no  convinc- 
ing evidence.     Without  attempting  to  prove  the  contrary,   I 

^  See  above,  pages  6-9,  especially  6-7. 

^  For  recent  utterances,  see  e.g.  Grandgent,  2  f. ;  Duff,  5 ;  for  earlier 
support  of  this  view  see  Cooper  xxviii,  and  note  i. 

^'Here  Miss  Brock  errs  through  failure  to  note  the  important  differ- 
ences between  the  first  three  of  the  four  writers  named  by  her;  on 
these  see  below,  especially  16-17,  21-23. 


Archaism  in  Aldus  Gcllius  13 

shall  examine  the  two  statements  made  in  the  last  citation  in 
the  light  of  other  statements  made  by  Miss  Brock  in  other 
parts  of  her  book. 

If  I  correctly  understand  what  is  meant  in  the  clause  "But 
the  greater  proportion  of  the  archaisms  ...  in  the  old  Latin 
literature",  it  means,  in  part,  that  the  greater  proportion  of 
the  archaisms  in  the  authors  named  by  her  were  not  survival 
archaisms,  as  I  should  myself  incline  to  believe  in  the  case  of 
Apuleius,  but,  if  I  may  use  the  phrase,  revival  archaisms 
culled  from  the  ancients.  She  has  not  established  the  truth  of 
this  afifirmation.  How  does  she  know  that  these  words  were 
not  really  current?  In  view  of  the  scanty  literary  remains 
from  Africa  before  Fronto's  time,  how  can  we  be  sure,  in  the 
absence  of  further  evidence,  that  an  archaic  word  found  in 
Apuleius,*^  a  writer  born  and  reared  in  Africa,  was  taken  di- 
rectly from  Plautus  or  Ennius  or  other  ancient  writer,  rather 
than  employed  in  accordance  with  the  usage  of  the  day  and 
country?  In  other  words,  how  does  she  know  that  these 
archaic  words  were  not  in  general  use  in  Africa  at  the  time 
when  Apuleius,  for  example,  wrote?  How  can  she  be  sure 
that  they  were  used  in  the  period  subsequent  to  Apuleius,  be- 
cause of  their  "sacred"  character  and  not  rather  because  they 
W'ere  the  natural  words  to  use,  and  had  been  long  current  even 
before  his  time?  Since  we  have  practically  no  data  to  argue 
from,  the  truth  of  neither  side  of  the  argument  can  be  firmly  ^ 
established.  With  the  scanty  data  now  at  hand,  it  is  often  im- 
possible to  decide  whether  an  archaic  word  was  borrowed 
directly  from  the  old  writers  or  had  long  formed  a  part  of 
the  plebeian  vocabulary.*^    If  more  of  the  writings  of  Plautus, 

"  Gellius's  case  is  rather  difFerent  from  Apuleius's,  in  view  of  his 
own  repeated  declarations  that  he  memorized  words  from  the  earlier 
authors  for  later  use;  see  below,  note  106.  It  will  appear  below 
(page  27),  also,  that  it  is  in  vocabulary  rather  than  in  syntax  that 
his  archaizing  tendencies  show  themselves.     See  also  note  9. 

"Miss  Brock,  26,  writes:  "Indeed,  vulgarism  and  archaism  could 
not  but  overlap,  in  view  of  tlie  large  proportion  of  vulgarisms  in  tiic 
archaic  vocabulary,  in  the  days  when  the  gulf  between  the  written  and 
the  spoken  language  was  not  so  firmly  fixed".  Reference  may  be  made 
to  note  22  above,  to  prove,  if  need  be,  that  there  were  different  kinds 
even  of  written  language,  and  that  the  gulf  between  one  of  these  kinds 
and  early  Latin  was  not  so  wide  or  deep. 


14  Archaism  in  Aulus  Gellius 

of  Ennius,  of  Cato,  and  other  old  writers  were  extant,  it  is 
probable  that  we  should  have  to  revise  our  views  of  what  is 
archaic  and  what  is  plebeian.  An  examination  of  the  Meta- 
morphoses of  Apuleius  has  disclosed  more  than  fifty  words 
which  appear  nowhere  else  in  extant  literature.*^  Some  of 
them,  doubtless,  Apuleius  himself  coined,  some  probably  were 
words  in  common  use,  and  others,  without  doubt,  he  borrowed 
from  ancient  works  which  are  not  extant. 

The  most  surprising  statement  in  the  citations  given  above 
from  Miss  Brock's  book,  however,  is  in  the  last  clause  ("While 
.  .  .  was  spoken":  see  above,  page  12).  The  process  of  de- 
duction does  not  appear,  at  least  to  the  present  writer,  by 
which  she  arrives  at  the  broad  generalization  that  all  archa- 
isms which  were  also  living  vulgarisms  were  found  in  the 
"popular  speech  ivherez'cr  Latin  was  spoken".  In  view  of  her 
statement  (163),  that  "it  is  not  the  Latin  of  Africa  but  the 
contemporary  Latin  of  other  countries  which  is  unknown 
ground,  and  it  is  our  ignorance  of  the  latter  which  obscures 
our  judgment  of  the  former",**  her  sweeping  generalization 
given  above  is  all  the  more  astonishing.  At  any  rate,  she  sup- 
plies no  evidence  to  offset  the  results  of  the  careful  investiga- 
tions of  Cooper,  Olcott,  and  Kiibler,  referred  to  above  (page 

9)- 

We  are  ready  now  to  revert  to  the  remark  made  above 
(page  5),  that  it  would  be  instructive  and  interesting  if  we 
could  discover  in  full  the  forces  at  work  which  produced  men 
of  the  type  of  Pronto,  Gellius,  and  Apuleius,  etc.  It  would 
appear,  from  pages  5-14,  that  one  force  to  be  reckoned  with 
in  the  case  of  at  least  two  of  them,  is  African  Latin,  or,  to 
put  the  matter  better,  the  effects  of  the  African  environment 
into  which  they  were  born.  Apuleius  and  Pronto,  though 
probably  Romans  by  blood,  were  of  African  birth.  Apuleius, 
particularly,  gives  striking  evidence  of  his  southern  origin.*^ 
Pronto  aimed  at  the  archaic  simplicity  of  Cato  and  Ennius,*® 


*'For  the  new  words  in  the  Cupid  and  Psyche  story  see  Purser,  xciii. 

**  Brock,  163  f. 

**  Kretschmann,  4;  Cooper,  xli. 

*°  Kretschmann,  16-17;  Purser,  Ixxv-lxxvi. 


Archaism  in  Aulus  Gellius  I5 

but  he  could  not  free  himself  entirely  from  the  forces  of 
heredity  and  environment.*^ 

A  repeated  reading  of  the  works  of  Apuleius,  and  more 
especially  of  the  Metamorphoses,  has  convinced  me  that  the 
archaic  qualities  in  Apuleius  are  not,  as  they  seem  to  be  in 
the  case  of  Gellius,  primarily  labored  imitations  of  the  pre- 
classical  writers,-'^  but,  on  the  contrary,  are  more  often  the 
natural  and  spontaneous  result  of  heredity  and  environment*' 
on  an  emotional  and  impressionable  temperament/'"  Though 
Gellius's  African  extraction  is  only  conjectural  at  best,='  yet  iri 
his  case  too  the  African  element  has  to  be  reckoned  with  to 
some  extent,  indirectly,  b-cause  he  was  so  deeply  influenced 
by  Pronto  (see  below,  pages  16-17). 

The  other  important  factor  to  be  reckoned  with  in  the  case 
of  all  three,  though  in  varying  degrees,  is  deliberate  study  of 
the  earher  Latin  writers  and,  as  a  consequence,  conscious  or 
unconscious  reproduction  of  the  vocabulary,  and,  far  less  often, 

*'  Mackail,  235  f. 

«Cf.  Kretschmann,  17:  "Longe  aliter  Apuleius  versatus  est,  qui 
quamvis  multa  et  fortasse  plura  quam  primo  aspectu  videatur  antiqua 
prorsusque  obsoleta  verba  receperit,  tamen  aliquantum  ab  orationis 
prisca  quadam  specie  remotus  est.  Neque  enim  ilia  antiquitatis  vere- 
cundia  eiusque  castitatis  admiratione  commotus,  qua  Fronto  fuit, 
priscae  consuetudinis  verba  revocavit ;  sed  ut  eorum  illecebris  orationem 
docte  exornaret,  rhetorum  praecepta  secutus,  non  aliter  atque  earn 
omnibus  rhetoricae  artis  exquisitissimis  munditiis  distinxit  ...  Sed 
si  totum  dictionis  tenorem  priscum  aut  ad  vetustatis  imitationem  adap- 
tatum  esse  negamus,  eo  non  infitiamur,  totos  refertos  esse  libros 
veteris  consuetudinis  vocibus  proprietatibusque".  Cf.  also  Piechotta, 
20-21;  Purser,  xv,  note  2,  and,  more  especially,  xciii-xciv. 

*'See  Cooper,  xviii.  xxi-xxvi.  with  citations;  Grandgent,  Vulgar 
Latin    3      Piechotta,  5  ff.,  has  a  suggestive  discussion  of  this  problem. 

"See  Kretschmann,  4-5;  8(fin)-9;  Kiibler,  Archiv,  8.162.201.  In  this 
view  the  author  finds  himself  in  sharp  disagreement  with  the  opmions 
of  most  scholars  who  have  written  on  Apuleius  (compare,  for  the 
current  view,  e.g.  Teuffel  §  3671;  Brock,  32;  Knapp,  135.  with  the 
authorities  there  cited).  For  another  particular  in  which  Apuleuis's 
style  reflects  the  influence  of  environment,  see  below,  pages  19-20,  on 
his  attitude  toward  the  Greeks. 

"See  Teuffel,  §  365.1;  Cooper,  xl,  and  note  3;  Knapp,  Stories  from 
Aulus  Gellius,  5-6. 


i6  Archaism  in  Aulus  Gellius 

of  the  syntax  of  those  writers  (compare  above,  page  5). 
Fronto^^  and  Gellius^-''  freely  avow  their  devotion  to  the  early 
Latin  writers.  Apuleius,  not  only  by  certain  elements  of  his 
own  style,  but  by  numerous  quotations'^*  from  earlier  Latin 
works  attests  his  intimate  acquaintance  with  the  classical  and 
the  preclassical  writers.  One  other  special  detail  may  be  noted 
here.  Gellius  was  a  student  of  the  old  writers  on  law ;"  we 
may  be  pretty  certain  he  memorized  matters  in  the  course  of 
such  reading,  as  he  did,  he  tells  us,  in  other  connections.^* 
Legal  writings"  tend  toward  the  use  of  archaic  words  and 
phrases.  Their  style  is  inclined  to  be  stereotyped.  Gellius's 
legal  training  must  have  given  him  an  additional  bias  towards 
the  archaic  in  language.     See  also  below,  page  38,  on  censio. 

These  three  writers,  Fronto,  Gellius,  and  Apuleius,  are 
commonly  placed  in  the  same  class  as  the  most  conspicuous 
examples  of  the  second  century  archaisers.^*  In  this  paper, 
too,  heretofore  their  general  likeness  to  one  another  has  been 
emphasized.  Yet,  on  closer  examination,  we  find  considerable 
difference  between  them.  Striking  as  is  the  agreement,  in 
some  respects,  in  the  views  of  Fronto  and  Gellius,  there  are 
equally  striking  dififerences.  Some  of  these  differences  will  be 
noted ;  then  the  striking  contrast  between  Gellius  and  Apuleius 
in  their  attitudes  toward  the  earlier  Latin  writers  will  be 
discussed. 

In  the  Drisler  Studies,  140,  we  find  the  following  with 
reference  to  the  mutual  relations  of  Fronto  and  Gellius: 
'These  passages,  few  as  they  are,  are  sufficient  of  themselves 
to  make  it  clear  that  Fronto  exercised  a  considerable  influence 

"See  Knapp,  Drisler  Studies,  135;  Kretschmann,  4;  Priebe,  6  ff. 

^  See  below,  page  17. 

"  See  below,  page  22 ;  Vahlen,  Ixxx-Ixxxi. 

"  Cf.  14.2.1.  For  Apuleius's  legal  vocabulary  see  Helm's  Praefatio- 
to  Florida,  xii-xiii. 

"  Cf.  10.25. 1 ;  11.3.1;  17.2.1;  20.10.4. 

*"  Cf.  Purser's  remark,  page  Ixxv,  that  "the  jurists,  such  as  Gaius, 
wrote  in  a  rational  way,  with  a  natural  leaning  towards  archaic  style, 
yet  not  pedantically  affecting  it". 

"^  Kretschmann,  2;  Drisler  Studies,  127,  135,  138-140;  Cooper,  xl; 
Priebe,  2. 


Archaism  in  Anliis  Gcllius  IJ 

upon  Gellins ;  yet  they  afford  no  ground  whatever  for  the 
statement  sometimes  made  that  he  was  a  pupil  of  Fronto. 
Indeed,  our  author's  words  at  xix.  8.1  are  enough  to  disprove 
this  assertion".  J.  Kretschmer,  De  A.  GelHi  Fontibus,  103, 
writes:  "Non  tarn  magister  <Fronto>  fuit  Gellii  quam 
amicus  honoratissimus,  cuius  sermonibus  non  sine  magna  utiH- 
tate  adfuisse  se  fateatur  xix.8.1.  Scripti  Hbri  Frontonis  Gel- 
Hus  nulHus  meminit,  neque  ego  vestigium  ullum  satis  certum 
deprehendi". 

Professor  Knapp  states:'""  "Among  poets  Plautus  and  En- 
nius,  among  orators  Cato  Censor,  stand  highest  in  his  (=Gel- 
lius's)  estinlation.  Plautus  in  mentioned  or  cited  by  him  in 
at  least  thirty-five  places,  and  the  quotations  cover  the  whole 
range  of  the  extant  plays". ""^  The  number  of  references  to 
Plautus  or  citations  from  his  plays  is  even  larger  than  this  esti- 
mate. About  forty-five  such  references  and  citations  are  found 
in  the  Noctes  Atticae.  Ennius  also  is  referred  to  or  cited 
about  the  same  number  of  times ;  Cato's  name  appears  ap- 
proximately seventy  times ;  in  many  instances  there  are  ex- 
tended quotations.  H.  Kretschmann"^  does  not  seem  war- 
ranted in  his  assertion,  at  least  so  far  as  it  refers  to  our 
author,  that,  while  Fronto  took  Ennius  as  a  model.  Gellius 
imitated  Plautus,  for  the  w^eight  of  the  evidence  is  certainly 
in  favor  of  Cato  (see  Drisler  Studies,  133-134). 

If,  however,  we  were  to  judge  of  Gellius's  preferences  solely 
by  frequency  of  citation  and  reference,  w^e  should  have  to  ex- 
tend our  list  of  favorites. 

\^ergil  would  be  high  up  in  any  such  list.  The  actual  num- 
ber of  references  and  citations  is  even  greater  than  in  the  case 
of  Cato.®^  Not  one  of  the  twelve  books  of  the  Aeneid  or  of 
the  four  books  of  the  Georgics  is  neglected,  and.  on  the  aver- 

"  Drisler  Studies,  132. 

**  Cf .  Stolz.  1.30:  "Sicherlich  mehr  auf  Rechnung  archaistischer 
Liebhaberei  ist  es  zu  setzen,  wenn  Gellius  vi.  17.4  Plautus  also  'homo 
linguae  atque  elegantiae  in  verbis  latinae  princeps'  unci  xix.8.6  als 
'linguae  latinae  decus'  bezeichnet".     Cf.  also  Cooper,  x.xxviii. 

"  Kretschmann,  16-17. 

"Drisler  Studies,  140.  See  the  references  in  the  Index  Auctorum, 
pages  325-326,  of  Hosius's  edition  of  Gellius. 


^ 


1 8  Archaism  in  Aldus  Gellius 

age,  there  are  four  or  five  citations  from  each  book.  There 
are  also  three  citations  (eight  lines  in  all)  from  the  Eclogues.''^ 

Varro  is  another  favorite,  and  M.  Tullius  Cicero,*'*  by  sheer 
frequency  and  range  of  citation,  must  be  placed  near  the  head  of 
the  list.  The  following  are  the  works  of  Cicero  which  are  re- 
ferred to  or  quoted :  Brutus,  Orator,  De  Oratore,  Orationes 
in  Antonium,  Pro  Caecina,  Pro  Caelio,  Pro  Cluentio,  Pro 
Milone,  In  L.  Pisonem,  Pro  Cn.  Plancio,  De  Imperio  Cn. 
Pompei,  De  Provinciis  Consularibus,  Pro  Quinctio,  Pro  C. 
Raberio,  Pro  S.  Roscio,  Contra  Rullum,  Pro  Sestio,  Pro  Sulla, 
In  Verrem,  Oratio  de  Accusatore  Constituendo,  Epistulae®^  ad 
Atticum,  ad  L.  Plancum,  ad  Ser.  Sulpicium,  De  Amicitia,  De 
Divinatione,  De  Fato,  De  Finibus,  De  Officiis,  De  Republica, 
De  Gloria,  De  lure  Civili,  Tusculanae  Disputationes. 

In  view  of  the  incomplete  and  fragmentary  character  of  the 
extant  works  of  Fronto,  it  would  not  be  safe  to  attempt  to 
draw  too  definite  conclusions  concerning  his  favorite  Latin 
authors.  The  Index  Scriptorum  in  Naber's  edition  (268-270) 
includes  references  to  citations  from  these  Latin  authors,  be- 
side others:  Accius  (four  citations),  Caecilius  (two),  C. 
Caesar  (three),  Cato  (twenty- four),  Cicero  (twenty-two), 
Ennius  (fifteen),  Lucretius  (five),  Naevius  (three),  Plautus 
(seven),  Sallust  (fourteen).  Doubtless,  if  more  of  Fronto's 
literary  works  had  survived,  they  would  only  emphasize  the 
facts  just  stated.  Cato  and  Ennius  are  in  high  favor.  Plautus 
is  in  fifth  place.  We  do  not  find  Vergil  and  Varro  in  Naber's 
list. 


"On  Vergil's  influence  upon  the  literature  of  the  centuries  since  his 
time  see  e.g.  Knapp,  Originality  of  Latin  Literature,  The  Classical 
Journal  3.252;  Sellar,  Virgil,  60  ff. 

"  Drisler  Studies,  130.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  Cicero  was  rated  by 
Gellius,  as  by  others  before  him,  among  the  antiqui  and  the  veteres; 
see  below,  page  30;  Drisler  Studies,  129-132.  Hence  Gellius's 
frequent  citation  of  Cicero  is  after  all  but  one  more  proof  of  his 
archaizing.  Varro's  antiquarian  tendencies  in  scholarship  and  re- 
search need  no  illustration  beyond  a  reference  to  Teuffel,  164.  2. 
In  language,  too,  Varro  was  an  archaist ;  see  e.g.  Schmalz,  665.  For 
the  reading  of  Varro  in  Gellius's  time  see  the  Prologomena  to  A. 
Riese's  edition  of  Varro,  Saturae  Menippeae,  pages  51-52. 

*'For   Fronto's  opinion   of   Cicero's  letters  see  below,   page   19. 


Archaism  in  .hilus  Gcllins  19 

In  this  connection  it  is  worth  while  to  note  the  difference  in 
attitude  of  Fronto  and  GelHus  toward  Cicero's  letters.  An- 
toninus writes  (Epistulae  2.4:  Naber,  page  107)  to  Fronto 
as  follows :  Ciceronis  epistulas,  si  forte  electas,  totas  vel  dimi- 
diatas  habes,  imperitas.vel  mone  quas  potissimum  legendas  mihi 
censeas  ad  facultatem  sermonis  fovendam.  Fronto  replies 
(2.5)  :  Memini  me  excerpisse  ex  Ciceronis  epistulis  ea  dum- 
taxat  quibus  inesset  aliqua  de  eloquentia  vel  philosophia  vel  de 
republica  disputatio :  praeterea  si  quid  eleganti  aut  verbo 
notabili  dictum  videretur,  excerpsi.  Quae  in  usu  meo  ad 
manum  erant.  misi  tibi.  .  .  Omnes  autem  Ciceronis  epistulas 
legendas  censeo  mea  sententia  vel  magis  quam  omnes  eius 
orationes.     Epistulis  Ciceronis  nihil  est  perfectius. 

Gellius  mentions  Cicero's  letters  only  three  times  (1.22. 19; 
4.9.6;  12. 13. 21).  In  the  first  instance,  merely  to  illustrate  a 
certain  use  of  supcrcssc,  he  quotes  from  Ad  Fam.  10.35.5  • 
Nam  neque  deesse  rei  publicae  volo  neque  superesse.  This  is 
quite  in  accord  with  the  Gellian  manner.  With  a  like  purpose 
in  mind,  that  is,  to  define  the  phrase  dies  rcligiosus,  he  makes 
his  second  quotation,  from  Ad  Att.  9.5.2.  It  is  to  comment  on 
the  phrase  intra  modnm  that  the  third  quotation  (Ad  Fam. 
4.4.4)  is  given.  In  none  of  the  three  passages  does  he  utter 
one  word  of  formal  or  special  commendation  of  Cicero's  let- 
ters, prone  as  he  was  to  eulogize  in  set  terms  those  from  whom 
he  cites.  From  all  this,  however,  we  may  hardly  be  justified 
in  the  inference  that  Gellius  did  not  regard  the  letters  highly, 
but  it  is  at  least  safe  to  conclude  that  he  did  not  find  in  them 
the  material  suited  to  his  needs. 

In  the  Drisler  Studies,  140,  attention  is  called  to  Fronto's 
attitude  toward  the  Greeks  as  contrasted  with  that  of  Gel- 
lius.*"    Apuleius  shared  with  Gellius  his  admiration   for  the 

"See  Gellius,  1.8.6;  10.22.3;  11.16.1,9;  12. 1.24;  14.1.32;  15. 11. 3; 
17.20.7,8;  18.13. 5.  Two  of  these  passages  may  be  cited  in  full:  10.22.3 
Verba  .  .  .  Platonis  .  .  .  scrips!,  quoniam  vertere  ea  consilium  non 
fuit,  cum  ad  proprietates  eorum  nequaquam  possit  Latina  oratio  aspi- 
rare  ac  multo  minus  etiam  mea:  12. 1.24  Haec  Favorinum  dicentcm 
audivi  Graeca  oratione.  Cuius  sententias  communis  utilitatis  gratia, 
quantum  meminisse  potui.  rettuli,  amoenitates  vero  ct  copias  ubertates- 
que   verl)orum    Latina   omnis    facundia   vix   quadam    indipisci   potuerit, 


20  Archaism  in  Aulus  Gcllius 

Greeks.  A  glance  at  the  Index  Auctorum  in  Helm's  edition 
will  be  sufficient  to  prove  this  interest.  Almost  every  page  of 
the  Florida  reveals  the  name  of  some  Greek  poet  or  philo.-- 
opher.  Apparently  one  of  the  accusations  against  Apuleius 
v^^as  the  charge  that  he  was  equally  a  master  both  of  Latin 
and  of  Greek  (Apol.  5.5).*''  Fronto,  on  the  other  hand,  de- 
spised, or  affected  to  despise,  the  Greeks :  see  e.g.  Drisler 
Studies,  140;  Brock,  38,  41.''^ 

Although  Gellius's  chief  interests  lie  mainly  with  the  early 
classical  and  the  preclassical  writers,  he  was  by  no  means  ignor- 
ant of  the  literature  of  the  first  century.  However,  when  one 
remembers  the  great  number  of  Latin  authors  mentioned  by 
him  (I  have  noted  well  over  seventy),  his  silence  in  regard  to 
Propertius  and  TibuUus,  Livy  and  Tacitus,  Quintilian  and 
Juvenal,  is  surprising."^  The  nearer  he  approaches  his  own 
time,  the  less  he  has  to  say  about  literary  men  and  their 
works.'"  Still,  references  to  the  writers  named  below  attest 
some  knowledge  on  his  part  of  the  literature  from  the  opening 
of  the  Christian  era  to  his  own  day:  Augustus  Caesar 
(10.11.5;  15.7.3)  '■>  L.  Annaeus  Seneca  (12.2.3  ff.)  ;'^^  C.  Ateius 
Capito  (1.12.8)  ;  Valerius  Maximus  (12.7.8)  ;  Valerius  Probus 
(1.15.18)  ;  Q.  Asconius  Pedianus  (15.28.4);  Suetonius  Tran- 
quillus  (97-3;  1544)  • 

Of  Gellius's  contemporaries  many  are  named;  some  of  these, 
with  others  unnamed,  share  Gellius's  love  for  the  early  Latin 
writers.     Fronto'^-  especially  is  looked  upon  as  an  authority  in 


mea  tenuitas  nequaquam.  For  references  to  Gellius's  visit  to  Greece 
see  1.2.1;  2.2.1,2;  7.13.1,2;  7.16.1;  8.10;  9.4.1;  lo.i.i;  12.5. i ;  15.2.3; 
15.20.5;  16.6.1  ;  1 7.8. 1  ;  18.2. 1 ;  18.9.5;  18.10.3;  18.13. i :  19.1.1,4;  19.6.2; 
18.8.1 ;  19.12. 1. 

"  Yet,  as  Kretschmann,  67  ff.,  and  Purser,  xcv,  note,  Apuleius  uses 
few  Greek  words.  For  the  wide  use  of  Greek  in  Africa  in  Apuleius's 
time  see  e.g.   Purser,  xvi,  note. 

"  Purser,  Ixxi,  disregards  this  attitude  of  Fronto. 

^  Drisler  Studies,  134. 

"  Teuffel,  §  365.5. 

"  But  Gellius  names  Seneca  chiefly  to  criticize  him  severely.  Fronto, 
too,  shows  a  decided  antipathy  to  Seneca;  see  Teuffel,  §  298.1. 

"See  above,  5;  Drisler  Studies,  139-140. 


Archaism  in  Axilns  Gcllius  2i 

matters  linguistic  (2.26;  13.29;  19.8.10-13).  Apuleius  is  not 
mentioned,  although  it  is  possible  that  his  student  days  at 
Athens"  fell  at  about  the  time  when  Gellius  was  in  that 
city/*  The  standards  and  aims  of  Gellius  and  Apuleius  were 
so  diflferent  that  the  former's  silence  with  respect  to  his  more 
gifted  contemporary  should  cause  no  surprise  (cf.  page  20, 
above). 

It  is  interesting  now  to  compare  Apuleius  and  Gellius  in 
respect  to  their  citations  from  Latin  authors.  Gellius  is  par- 
ticularly interested  in  the  subject-matter  of  his  citations.  The 
ipse  dixit  of  an  Ennius,  a  Cato,  or  a  Varro  settles  beyond  fur- 
ther argument  any  point  relating  to  customs  or  language  (see, 
for  example,  16.14  or  18.9).  Gellius  seems  to  have  mainly  ^ 
two  objects  in  view:  first,  to  display  his  erudition,  and,  sec- 
ondly, to  instruct."  His  quotations  have  a  practical  purpose, 
not  an  aesthetic."  Not  the  beauty  of  a  passage,  the  imagin- 
ative, the  literary  qualities,  appeal  to  our  author.  He  quotes  a 
passage  because  it  has  an  unusual  word  or  form  in  it,  or  an 
allusion  to  some  old  law,  to  some  quite-  or  half -forgotten  cus-  ^  ^ 
tom,  or  for  some  other  similar  reason  which  appeals  to  his 
prosaic  grammarian's  taste  (see,  for  example.  1.7. 11;  1.11.16; 
1.16.1-5;  1. 18.2;  1.21;  1. 25. 17;  2.14;  19.8). 

Apuleius  has  quite  a  different  purpose  in  view.  He  is  the 
popular  lecturer,  the  elegant  raconteur,  the  eloquent  and  gifted 
orator,  the  learned  expounder  of  a  mystic  philosophy.  He  is 
interested  in  making  his  point,  in  entertaining  his  readers,  in 
dazzling  his  auditors. '^^     His  citations  are  mere  literary  orna- 


"' Apuleius  refers  to  his  sojourn  at  Athens  in  Met.  (Helm's  edition: 
references  are  to  page  and  line)  4.2;  22.12;  Ap.  80.16:  Flor.  35.15; 
39.6.     See  Purser,  xii-xiii. 

"For  Gellius's  references  to  his  stay  at  Athens  see  above,  note  66. 
Purser,  xiii,  holds  that  Apuleius  remained  at  Athens  "probably 
.  .  .  till  150  A.D. ;  possibly  he  remained  later".  Knapp,  Stories  from 
Aulus  Gellius,  7,  showed  that  Gellius's  sojourn  in  Athens  antedated 
166  A.D.,  though  by  how  many  years  he  did  not  venture  to  say. 

"  Praefatio,  2,  10,   12-13. 

"See,  however,   19.11:    1.24. 

"If  Purser,  Ixix-lxxxiv,  is  right  in  regarding  Apuleius  as  an 
"Asianic"  in  style,  his  remarks  arc  in  point  here,  especially  Ixxvii. 


22  Archaism  in  Auliis  GcUius 

ments,  employed  for  their  rhetorical  effects.  Apuleius  is  no 
grammarian,  absorbed  in  the  consideration  of  the  minutiae  of 
language.  He  is  a  literary  artist,  profoundly  affected,  to  be 
sure,  by  his  predecessors  who  wrote  two  and  three  centuries 
before  his  day,  but  still  mingling,  with  certain  archaic  ele- 
ments, those  qualities  of  vocabulary  and  style  which  were, 
doubtless,  peculiar  to  his  own  native  Africa. '^^  The  same 
richness  of  vocabulary,  the  same  ornate  and  florid  style  are 
found  in  Tertullian,'^''  and,  to  a  less  degree,  in  Cyprian. *°  A 
few  examples  will  illustrate  what  was  stated  above  (page  21) 
with  reference  to  his  citations,  that  they  are  literary  orna- 
ments: see  Apol.^^  14.16-15.1  eleganter  Afranius  hoc  scriptum 
relinquat:  amabit  sapiens,  cupient  ceteri ;  6.23-7.1  sane  quidem, 
si  uerum  est  quod  Statium  Caecilium  in  suis  poematibus  scrip- 
sisse  dicunt,  innocentiam  eloquentiam  esse,  ego  uero  profiteor 
ista  ratione  ac  praefero  me  nemini  omnium  de  eloquentia  con- 
cessurum;  Flor.  3. 15-17  prorsus  igitur  ante  Hyagni(n)  nihil 
aliud  plerique  callebant  quam  Vergilianus  upilio  seu  busequa, 
'stridenti  miserum  stipula  disperdere  carmen' ;  42.7-9  equum 
deligunt  diutinae  fortitudinis,  uiuacis  pernicitatis,  id  est  et 
ferre  ualidum  et  ire  rapidum,  'qui  campos  collesque  gradu 
perlabitur  uno',  ut  ait  Lucihus.  These  illustrations  could  be 
multiplied  almost  indefinitely. 

The  actual  range  of  authors  cited  by  Apuleius  and  by 
Gellius,  while  by  no  means  identical,  is  the  same  to  a  re- 
markable degree.  Both  cite  Accius,  Aedituus,  Afranius,  Cae- 
cilius,  Calvus,  Cato,  Catullus,  Caesar,  Cicero,  Ennius,  Horten- 
sius,  Lucilius,  Lucretius,  Plautus,  Sallust,  Varro,  Vergil.  The 
number  of  Latin  authors,  however,  cited  by  Gellius  (I  have 
noted  approximately  seventy)  is  much  greater  than  that  cited 
by  Apuleius  (approximately  twenty).  It  is  not  so  much,  then, 
in  the  range  of  authors  cited  as  in  the  motives  that  inspire 
citations  that  Gellius  and  Apuleius  differ. 

"  Stolz,  49.  But  see  E.  Norden,  588-598  (his  views  are  stated  and 
discussed  above,  note  27)  ;  Purser,  Ixxxiv ;  Brock,  163  ff.  Com- 
pare Teuffel  §  366.6.     See  above,  pages  6  ff. 

"  Mackail,  252. 

'"  Mackail,  255. 

"Helm's  edition    (page  and  line  are  cited). 


Archaism  in  Aldus  Gcllius  2^ 

They  differ  again  in  the  frequency  of  citations.  Apuleius 
cited  Ennius  four  times,  Plautus  four  times,  and  Cato  only 
three.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  both  Gellius  and  Apuleius 
have  one  reference  to  Cato  in  common.^-  Varro  is  cited  by 
Apuleius  twice,  X'ergil  ten  times.  Apuleius  rarely  praises  these 
authors  whom  he  cites.^^  This  is  in  sharp  contrast  to  Gel- 
lius's  frequent  laudations  of  the  old  writers.*** 

It  was  argued  above  (pages  9-1 1)  that  the  archaic  element 
in  Apuleius  is  in  large  part  the  inevitable  outcome  of  his 
African  birth.  It  was  remarked,  however,  that  this  view  has 
not  been  accepted  by  all  scholars.  Some  attention  will  now 
be  given  to  the  more  commonly  accepted  theory. 

We  may  do  this  most  conveniently  by  considering  briefly 
some  points  discussed  in  Leky's  De  Syntaxi  Apuleiana  (1908). 
Leky  regards  it  as  an  established  truth  that  Apuleius  is,  pri- 
marily, an  intentional  archaist^"  and  so  throughout  his  disser- 
tation charges  all  the  archaic  elements  of  Apuleius's  syntax  to 
direct  and  conscious  imitation.  Desertine^**  takes  the  same 
ground  with  reference  to  both  vocabulary  and  syntax.®^ 
Kretschmann  (pages  34  ff.  and  87  ff.)  holds  the  same  view. 
Leky's  work  consists  in  comparing  certain  syntactical  usages 
found  in  Apuleius  with  similar  uses  in  the  preclassical  period, 
particularly  in  Plautus.  His  examples  do  show  striking  re- 
semblances. It  is  suggestive  to  note,  however,  that  while 
Apuleius  and  Gellius  often  exhibit  similar  archaic  qualities 
of  syntax,  as  will  be  shown  farther  on.  these  qualities  are  more 
conspicuous  in  Apuleius ;  still,  in  him,  they  seem  quite  natural 
and  unaffected.^^     If  we  may  consider  Met.   i.i   to  refer  to 


**  Gellius,  2.2.28;  Apul.  De  Mundo,  page  150.7. 

^'But  see  De  Deo  Soc.  (Thomas's  edition),  page  18.12,  and  Apol., 
page  14.17. 

"  See  above,  note  41 ;  below,  note  106. 

"Leky,  5-6. 

"Cf.  Desertine,  i;  Duff,  30:  and  the  authorities  cited  in  Drisler 
Studies,   135. 

•'  Pages  81  ff. 

"Desertine,  81.  Reference  may  be  made  again  to  the  argument  on 
pages  lo-ii  above,  and  to  note  41.  For  the  comparatively  small 
amount  of  archaism  in  syntax  in  Gellius  see  below,  page  2j. 


24  Archaism  in  Aldus  Gellius 

Apiileius  himself,  we  shall  conclude  that  he  even  exerted  him- 
self to  avoid  the  very  things  in  which  Gellius  delighted. 

Leky,*^  commenting  upon  the  omission  of  the  finite  verb  in 
Apuleius,  after  giving  examples  of  such  omission  in  Plautus, 
remarks :  "Huiusmodi  igitur  apud  Apuleium  dicendi  rationem, 
quamvis  etiam  aliunde  orta  esse  possit,  tamen  pro  summo 
Apulei  veterum  studio  et  ostentatione  non  sine  bono  iure  ex 
priscorum  imitatione  repetemus".  He  cites  Haupt,  Op.  3.377, 
for  examples  from  Petronius  and  Phaedrus,  as  well  as  Mad- 
vig's  discussion  of  this  usage  in  Cic.  De  Fin.  1.9.  On  page 
8  again,  Leky,  with  reference  to  the  same  usage,  writes : 
"Haec  exampla  .  .  .  quamvis  ne  ab  aliis  quidem  scriptoribus 
prorsus  sint  aliena.  .  ."  This  admission  materially  weakens 
his  claim  that  such  usages  were  mere  imitations  of  the  an- 
cients.    They  are  evidently  plebeianisms. 

An  adverb  modifying  a  substantive  is  found  in  Apuleius. 
The  same  usage  is  found  in  Plautus.  Leky  notes^**  that 
Cicero  rarely  employs  it.  Livy,  Tacitus  and  the  Augustan 
poets  employ  it  more  frequently.  Yet  Leky  concludes  (page 
11):  "ex  Apuleianis  tamen,  quae  mihi  certe  videntur  ad 
comicorum  sermonem  addecere,  sunt".  On  page  36,  we  find 
another  illustration  of  Leky's  method,  or  rather  of  his  in- 
ability to  see  the  implication  of  his  own  citations:  "Indica- 
tivi"^  usus  apud  Apuleium  multo  liberior  est  quam  apud  op- 
timae  latinitatis  scriptores.  Atque  banc  dicendi  libertatem  ab 
Apuleio  plerumque  ex  priscorum  sermone  sumptam  esse  ex 
€xemplis  sequentibus  elucebit".  He  mentions  the  indicative  in 
dubitative  questions  as  an  example  of  this  imitation  of  the 
ancients,  and  then  directly  says :  "Quae  dicendi  ratio  .  .  . 
vulgi  sermoni  propria  est".  He  notes  (page  36)  its  use  in 
letters  of  Cicero  ad  Atticum,  in  Catullus,  in  Vergil.  On  page 
37,  in  regard  to  certain  uses  of  the  subjunctive,  he  says: 
"Exemplo  certe  comicorum  Apuleius  facit,  ut  alteram  con- 
iunctivi  personam  numeri  singularis  ponat  pro  imperativo, 
quem  priscorum   usum  poetae,   ut   Catullus,   iam   receperant, 

''  Leky,  6. 

"'Leky,  II. 

"  See  Brock,  195. 


V 


Archaism  in  Aiilus  Gcllius  25 

quemque  interdum  invenimus  in  Cic.  epp".  The  above  quo- 
tations are  intended  to  show  that  Leky  takes  it  for  granted 
that,  when  Apuleius's  language  differs  from  the  classic  norm 
so  as  to  show  an  archaic  quality,  it  is  because  he  deliberately 
imitates  the  ancients."-  He  gives  very  little  weight  even  to  his 
own  citations  of  works  in  which  the  plebeian  elements  are 
generally  acknowledged,  and  which,  being  of  a  later  date  than 
Plautus,  tend  to  show  that  such  usages  in  the  Latin  language 
had  maintained  themselves  side  by  side  with  the  literar>' 
speech,  during  the  classic  period,  even  at  Rome.  We  should 
expect  to  find  that,  in  the  Latin  language  as  it  was  spoken  and 
written  in  Africa,"^  the  archaic-plebeian  elements  would  be 
striking.  A  more  illuminating  study  of  the  language  and 
style  of  Apuleius  might  be  made  by  comparing  him,  not  only 
with  Plautus  and  other  early  writers,  but  with  writers  who 
were  of,  or  near,  his  own  time,  especially  with  others  of  the 
African  school,  such  as  Tertullian  and  Cyprian.  If  these 
same  archaistic  qualities  should  be  found  in  these  writers,  who 
could  hardly  be  charged  with  intentional  archaising,''*  it  would 
be  a  fair  inference  that  Apuleius,  also,  did  not  borrow  so  much 
directly  from  Plautus  as  he  is  generally  believed  to  have  bor- 
rowed. 

Although  he  appears  to  give  little  importance  to  it,  Leky,  by 
his  own  investigations,  proves  that  many  of  the  very  qualities 
of  Apuleius's  syntax  which  he  has  ascribed  to  conscious  imi- 
tation of  Plautus  are  found  in  the  later  writers,  among  whom 
are  many  who  are  not  generally  regarded  as  archaisers  but 
whose  works  are  recognized  as  being  tinged  with  a  distinctly 
plebeian  color  ;^'''  we  may  name  here  Auctores  Belli  Africani 

"But  cf.  Flor.,  page  10.20  ff. ;  Piechotta,  3;  Kretschmann,  4. 

"Cooper  xviii,  xxvii ;  Piechotta,  i  flf. ;  above,  pages  5- 14. 

"Compare  Ott,  in  Neue  Jahrbiicher,  109.  762:  "Fachschriftsteller 
wie  die  arzt  Caelius  Aurelianus  und  der  theologe  Tertulliainis,  denen 
es  doch  vvolil  nicht  um  rhetorische  effecthashcerei  zu  thun  ist,  zeigen 
in  beiden  stuecken  die  ganz  gleichen  erscheinungen.  Und  wie  oft 
gemahnen  die  alien  uebersetzungen  der  Bibel  und  des  Irenaeus  an 
Plautus  und  die  archaische  literatur  ueberhaupt".  But  see  Brock, 
182-184. 

"  Lel<y,  15-29. 


26  Archaism  in  Aulus  GclHus 

et  Hispaniensis,  Vitruvius,  Phaedrus,  Petronius,  and  Tertul- 
lian.  On  page  21,  he  attributes  to  imitation  of  Plautus  Apu- 
leius's  use  of  the  infinitive  depending  upon  a  verb  of  motion  to 
express  purpose.  Even  though  parallels  of  the  so-called  ar- 
chaisms of  Apuleius  are  found  in  Cicero's  letters,  in  Quintil- 
ian,^"  and  may  be  produced  from  the  poets  and  the  writers  of 
plebeian  Latin,  Leky  still  maintains  his  thesis  that  Apuleius 
borrowed  directly  from  the  veteres,  and  particularly  from 
Plautus.  From  page  31  I  take  the  following,  which  epito- 
mizes Leky's  mental  attitude:  "facile  commovemur,  ut  a  pris- 
cis  sumptum  esse  usum  suspicemur". 

To  the  present  writer,  Leky's  dissertation  proves  that  the 
syntax  of  Apuleius  has  certain  qualities  which  are  found  not 
only  in  Plautus,  but  also  in  the  sermo  plebeius  of  later  periods. 
Cooper^^  and  Piechotta®^  prove  conclusively  that,  so  far  as 
word  formation  and  vocabulary  are  concerned,  the  Metamor- 
phoses of  Apuleius,  particularly,  furnishes  a  notable  example  of 
plebeian  Latinity  (see  above,  pages  lo-ii). 

That  Apuleius  abounds  in  archaic  and  rare  words  no  one 
who  has  examined  the  Metamorphoses  will  be  inclined  to 
deny.  But  the  same  may  be  said  of  Tertullian  and  of  Cyp- 
rian.^^  The  African  inscriptions  also  show  a  similar  vocabu- 
lary.^*'"  Leky  has  failed  to  prove  that  the  archaic  tinge  to 
Apuleius's  syntax  is  due  to  intentional  imitation.  He  has,  on 
the  contrary,  shown  that,  in  a  very  large  number  of  instances 
wherein  Apuleius's  syntax  differs  from  the  classic  norm,  it  is 
plebeian.     A  more   detailed   comparison   with   the   syntax  of 


"Leky,  30. 

"  xl  ff.,  and  lists. 

"  25-52. 

^'Cf.  examples  in  Piechotta,  28  f.,  and  Cooper  xxvii.  The  latter 
.says:  "especially  notable  is  the  strongly  archaic  element  in  the  sermo 
Africus,  which,  as  seen  in  Fronto,  Apuleius,  Tertullian,  etc.,  presents  so 
many  striking  analogies  with  the  language  of  Plautus.  This  phenome- 
non is  easily  accounted  for,  when  we  remember  that  the  first  germs 
of  Latin  were  carried  to  Africa  by  the  Roman  soldiers  and  colonists 
who  flocked  there  after  the  fall  of  Carthage,  in  146  B.  C".  See  also- 
Cooper's  footnotes ;  above,  page  9. 

""  Cf.  Kiibler,  Archiv,  8.  201   f. 


Archaism  in  Aiiliis  Gcllins  27 

TertulHan  and  Cyprian  would  probably  have  shown  that  /\pul- 
eius's  syntax  did  not  especially  differ  from  the  usages  of  other 
African  writers  of  about  his  own  time. 

The  archaic  element  is  not  so  obvious  and  striking  in  Gel- 
lius's  syntax  as  in  his  vocabulary. ^''^  It  is  not  difficult  to  find 
an  explanation  for  this  fact.  To  intersperse  one's  writings 
with  obsolete  and  archaic  words  may  indicate  profound  ad- 
miration for  the  writers  of  the  older  days  and  a  wide  ac- 
quaintance with  their  works  (an  acquaintance  which  may, 
however,  be  after  all  somewhat  superficial),  yet  does  not 
necessarily  involve  that  instinctive  feeling  which  enters  into 
the  very  spirit  of  the  ancients,  which  a  successful  imitation  of 
their  syntax  would  imply.  In  general,  then,  Gellius  uses  his 
moods,  tenses,  cases,  and  arranges  the  order  of  his  phrases  and 
sentences,  not  after  the  fashion  of  Cato,  but  according  to  the 
canons  of  his  own  time.  However,  here  and  there  we  dis- 
cover a  case  construction,  a  use  of  a  preposition,  an  em- 
ployment of  a  mood,  or  the  turn  of  a  phrase,  which  smacks  of 
a  period  three  centuries  before  Gellius's  day. 

As  in  the  case  of  his  vocabulary,  so  even  more  in  the  matter 
of  syntax,  one  cannot  always  be  sure  whether  these  peculiar 
usages  are  the  results  of  conscious  imitation,  or  are  uncon- 
scious reminiscences  of  the  old  authors  whose  works  Gellius 
conned  so  assiduously,  and  from  which  he  habitually  memor- 
ized passages,  or  are  merely  plebeianisms  which  had  gained 
currency  among  the  cultivated  classes  of  his  day. 

Gellius  comments  freely  upon  the  uses  of  words,  some- 
times defending  the  archaic  as  against  the  popular.  In  more 
than  one  instance  he  employs  words  which  elsewhere  he  has 
declared  to  be  obsolete.^"-  Purist  he  claims  to  be,  but  a  purist 
in  language,  from  his  point  of  view,  looked  for  authority  not 
to  the  usages  of  his  own  day  but  to  an  Ennius  or  a  Cato.     He 


"'From  this  point  on,  the  argument  on  pages  5-1 1  above,  that  in 
Apuleius  we  have  a  large  element  of  'survivar  archaisms,  whereas  in 
Gellius  we  have  rather,  in  the  main,  conscious  'revival'  archaisms  (aside 
from  those  cases  where  the  plebian  and  the  archaic  coincide)  should 
be  kept  steadily  in  mind.    See  again  above,  note  41. 

""Drisler  Studies.  146. 


28  Archaism  in  Aulus  Gellius 

seldom  comments  upon  syntactical  matters. ^''^  He  may  slip  in- 
to some  sentence  an  apparently  obsolete  construction,  but  he. 
usually  does  so  unostentatiously,  perhaps  unconsciously,  with 
no  comment,  and  with  no  citation  of  ancient  authorities."* 

In  his  paper  entitled  Archaism  in  Aulus  Gellius,"'  Pro- 
fessor Knapp  undertook  to  determine  the  exact  extent  of  Gel- 
lius's  indebtedness  to  anteclassical  writers.  In  the  first  part 
of  the  paper  (126-141),  by  means  of  citations  from  the  Noctes 
Atticae,  Gellius's  devotion  to  the  vetcres,  antiquiores,  maiores 
was  set  forth.  From  the  testimony  of  other  authors,  and  from 
evidence  furnished  by  Gellius  himself,  the  meaning  to  be  given 
to  these  terms  is  made  evident.  Finally,  the  author  traces  the 
rise  and  growth  of  antiquarianism  in  Latin  Literature  to  its 
culmination  in  the  second  century  of  our  era. 

In  the  second  part  (141-171),  some  archaisms  of  form  were 
noted,  and  then  were  given  alpabetical  lists  of  nouns,  adjectives, 
verbs,  adverbs,  prepositions  and  conjunctions,  which  Gellius 
was  believed  to  have  derived  from  older  Latin  writers. 

We  shall  now  proceed  to  give  additional  references  and  au- 
thorities in  connection  with  the  words  already  treated  in  the 
Drisler  Studies.  A  few  archaisms  of  form  and  vocabulary 
which  were  not  noted  there  will  be  added. 

"'See,  however,  1.7. 13;  17.2. 11. 

^*'*  Contrast  his  utterances  about  archaic  words :  see  below,  page  29. 

"°  Printed  in  Classical  Studies  in  Honour  of  Henry  Drisler,  126-171.- 


PART  I 

Archaisms  of  Form  and  Vocabulary 

A.  Forms. 

To  the  passages  cited  on  page  128  to  show  GelHus's  love  for 
the  older  writers  may  be  added  17.2.  i  :  Cum  librum  veteris 
scriptoris  legebamus,  conabamur  postea  memoriae  vegetandae 
gratia  indipisci  animo  ac  recensere,  quae  in  eo  libro  scripta 
assent  in  utrasque  existimationes  laudis  aut  culpae  adnotamen- 
tis  digna,  eratque  hoc  sane  quam  utile  exercitium  ad  conci- 
liandas  nobis,  ubi  venisset  usus,  verborum  sententiarumque 
elegantium  recordationes.  In  addition  to  the  statement  that  he 
habitually  committed  to  memory  words  and  phrases  of  older 
writers/*'*'  we  have  the  avowal  that  in  the  vctcres  scriptores 
perfection  was^°^  to  be  found.  It  is  worth  while  to  note  that, 
of  the  expressions  which,  according  to  17.2.2,  he  had  memori- 
zed from  Claudius  Quadrigarius,  there  occur  elsewhere  in  the 
Noctes  Atticae,  employed  by  Gellius  without  reference  to  their 
source,  cnmpnmis  (1.13.7;  i-i5-8;  ii-3-i  I  I3-I7-2;  13-21.25  ; 
18.4.8;  I9-5-3);''"  ne  .  .  .  quoqiic  (1.2.5;  ii-54;  20.1. 15)  ;  in 
medium  relinquo  (7.14.9).^**^  According  to  GelUus  himself, 
cumprimis  and  ne  .  .  .  quoquc  were  obsolete  or  nearly  so 
(17.2.14,18).^^°  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  regular  form, 
ne  .  .  .  quidem,  is  used  by  Gellius  at  least  twenty-three  times 
and  that  three  of  these  occurrences  (i  1.5.8;  20.1. 14;  20.1.33) 
are  removed  by  only  a  few  parapraphs  from  the  three  instances 
of  the  archaic  nc  .  .  .  quoqiie. 

In  referring  to  the  older  writers,'"  Gellius  usually  char- 
acterizes them  as  antiqui,  antiquiorcs,  or  maiorcs,  or  states 
that  a  word  or  construction  was  used  antiquitus.  In  like  man- 
ner, in  247  out  of  278  passages  in  the  two  versions  of  Servius's 

"•Cf.  10.25. 1 ;  1 1. 3.1;  20.10.4. 

"'Cf.  17.2.6;  17.2.10. 

"*  See  below,  page  36.     In  13. 17.2  he  is  talking  of  the  veteres. 

'"*  See  below,  page  55. 

"•  Drislcr  Studies,  170. 

"'Cf.  Drisler  Studies,  128-129. 


30  Archaism  in  Aulus  Gelliiis 

Commentary  on  Vergil  in  which  reference  is  made  to  the  ar- 
chaic character  of  the  words  used  by  Vergil,  the  author  employs 
the  words  antiqid,  vetcrcs,  maiorcs,  or  some  form  of  these 
words/^- 

On  pages  130-132  of  the  Drisler  Studies,  the  meaning  of 
the  terms  veteres,  antiqui,  and  the  like  is  discussed.  Compare 
with  the  citation  from  Ouintilian  9.3.1,  which  clearly  refers  to 
Cicero  and  his  predecessors,  the  following  from  Gellius  him- 
self:  13. 17.2  Sic  igitur  eo  verbo  veteres  esse  usos  et  cumprimis 
M.  Varronem"^  Marcumque  Tullium  omnes  ferme  libri  de- 
clarant; 9.12.4  Sed  et  veteres  plerique  ita  dixerunt,  et  M. 
Tullius. 

To  the  list  of  writers  (132)  by  whom  the  plural  of  arena 
is  employed  add  Vergil,  Horace  and  Columella."*  To  the 
notes  (141-146)"^  on  archaisms  of  form  may  be  added  aecum: 
16.4.  in  lemm.  For  prorsiis  and  prorsum  are  found  the  archaic 
syncopated  forms  prosus  and  prosum.^'^^  For  the  former  see 
2.8.7;  2.22.25;  4.13.4;  10.3. 10;  14.6.5;  20.5.8;  20.5.10.  See 
also  below,  pages  45-46.  Both  forms  are  used  by  Fronto  in  his 
correspondence.^^^ 

Temperi/^^  used  in  2.29.1 1,  Quin  potius  imius  et  cognates 
adfinesque  nostros  oramus,  ut  assint  eras  temperi  ad  meten- 
dum,  is  probably  an  archaism  ;"^  this  chapter  bristles  with 
archaisms. ^^°  Hosius  reads  temere  in  praef.  18,  where  Hertz 
reads  tempere}-'^ 

Aliqiii  is  used  as  a  substantive:  cf.  11. 13.5  inspicite  penitus 
quid  efificiant  verba  haec,  dicatque  mihi,  quaeso,  aliqui  vestrum 


^See  Steele,  Archaisms  in  Vergil,  A.J.P.,  15.166. 

"^  Compare  above,  note  64. 

"*  See  Lewis  and  Short,  s.v. 

"^  Drisler  Studies. 

"°  See  Georges,  s.v. ;  Neue-Wagener,  2.747. 

"'  See  Neue-Wagener,  2.747. 

""  Cf.  Knapp's  paper  on  Vahlen's  Ennius,  A.J. P.,  32.29,  note. 

"*  See  Georges,  s.v. ;  Neue-Wagener,  2.649 ;  and  Lorenz  on  Plautus 
Pseud.  375. 

^^  Knapp,  A.J. P.,  32.29,  note  i. 

^  See  Hertz,  Vindiciae  Gellianiae  Alterae,  26.  Hertz  took  tempere 
as  a  by-form  of  temperi:   see  Neue,  Lexicon  der  lateinischen  Wort- 


Archaism  in  Aldus  Gcllius  3^ 

an  sit  ulla  huiusce  sententiae  gravitas  aut  gratia.  According  to 
the  references  given  in  Neue-Wagener,  2.476,  the  usage  is 
rare,  beginning  with  Caesar  and  Cicero.  For  the  first  century 
and  a  half  of  the  empire  but  four  citations  are  given,  two  from 
Seneca's  Epistles,  one  from  Livy,  4.35.9,  one  from  Quint., 
Decl.  294.  It  would  seem  that  the  use  never  gained 
ground,  and  was  in  part  obsolete  by  Gellius's  time.^--  Gellius 
derived  it  then,  from  his  reading  of  the  vetcrcs}-^ 

It  may  be  noted  here  that  Hertz  in  his  editio  altera  minor 
(1886)  reads  quo  in  15. 10.2  instead  of  the  qui  of  his  critical 
edition  (1885).  Hosius  reads  quo.  In  addition  to  the  com- 
ments on  qui  in  the  Drisler  Studies  (145),  there  should  be 
noted  the  use  of  both  qui  and  quo  side  by  side  in  1.13.11.  The 
frequency  with  which  quo  occurs  elsewhere  in  Gellius  makes 
these  isolated  examples  of  qui  all  the  more  striking. 

It  should  be  noted  that  there  are  some  traces  in  the  MSS  of 
Gellius  of  an  archaic  form  of  the  dative  of  the  third  declension 
in  -e}^^  The  forms  are  parte,  2.12.1,  and  corpore,  3.1. 13. 
Hosius  and  Hertz  both  read  parti  and  corpori,  but  Hertz  holds 
that  the  -e  forms  are  not  impossible.^-"' 

Viderier  occurs  also  in  1 5.2.1  Ex  insula  Creta  quispiam  .  .  . 
sese  philosophum  dicebat  et  viderier  gestibat.  Note  the  two 
archaisms  together  here,  viderier,  and  gestibat.  For  the  latter 
form,  add  to  the  references  on  page  146  Munro  on  Lucr.  5.934, 


formen,   s.v.   tempore;   Biicheler,   Rhein.   Mus.,   15-444;   Neue-Wagener, 

2.649. 

'^  See  the  note  in  Hildebrand's  edition  of  Apuleius  on  Met.  6.29 
(Vol.  1.504);  Neue-Wagener,  2.476;  Thesaurus,  s.v. 

^I  use  the  term  here  in  Gellius's  understanding  of  it  (see  above, 
pages  29-30). 

"*  Lindsay,  The  Latin  Language,  vi.  §  28,  page  387. 

"'See  Vind.  Cell.  Alt.,  8;  Gorges,  18;  Bucheler.  Grundriss,  §§  276- 
278.  J.  Gronovius  ad  loc.  declared  that  a  collation  of  a  certain  MS 
which  he  possessed  gave  iure  dkundo  in  13. 12.9;  this  reading,  he  ad- 
ded, "est  vere  Romanum".  But  there  Hertz  had  iuri  dicundo  (so  too 
Hosius,  with  no  comment  whatever  in  his  apparatus  criticus).  In  his 
Vind.  Gell.  Alt.,  8,  Hertz  declined  to  put  this  passage  beside  2.12.1, 
3. 1. 13,  as  evidence  for  a  dative  in  -e.  because  Gronovius's  reading  "auf 
den  cod.  reginae  in  Vat.  597  zuruckzugehen  scheint,  bei  dem  ein 
falsches  in  iuri  dicundo  nachtriiglich  in  in  iure  dicundo  verbessert  ist". 


32  Archaism  in  Aulus  Gellius 

and  Steele  on  lenibat,  A.  J.  P.,  15.188.  Fervif'^  appears  also 
in  17.8.8. 

To  the  forms  of  queo  cited  on  page  146  add  the  following: 
queunt  14.1.30,  16.8.14,  16.13.9;  quire  11.9.1;  queat  2.6.9, 
12.12. 1 ;  queant  14.1.26  (bis)  in  affirmative  clause;  quiret 
14.1.12;  quiverit  (subj.)  14.1.17  in  affirmative  clause;  quivi 
14.2.25.    Note  also  nequivit  6.3.3;  nequirct  2.23.22. 

An  archaic  form  not  noted  in  the  Drisler  Studies  is  par- 
sisset,^-^  5. 14.15.    In  15.31. 5,  however,  Gellius  writes  pepercit. 

Worthy  of  a  place  here,  perhaps,  is  defio,  a  by-form  of  de- 
ficio,  which  appears  twice:  1.14.1  quod  viderent  multa  ad 
splendorem  domus  atque  victus  defied ;  20.8.5  deficiente  contra 
(luna)  defiunt.  In  the  latter  passage  note  deficio  and  defio 
side  by  side.  Defio  is  found  in  Plant.,  Ter.,  Enn.,  Ace  ,  Lucr., 
Verg.,  and  later  poets,  but  in  prose  apparently  only  in  Livy,^^* 
Vitruv.,  Gell.,  and  later.  Gellius  shows  no  knowledge,  it  may 
be  noted,  of  either  Livy  or  Vitruvius  (see  above,  page  20)  ;. 
it  is  likely,  therefore,  that  he  derived  the  forms  under  discus- 
sion from  his  beloved  veteres. 


B.  Vocabulary. 

We  shall  proceed  now  to  add  such  comments  and  references 
as  seem  profitable  to  the  words  Gellius  is  believed  to  have  bor- 
rowed from  the  older  writers.  This  list  of  words  begins  in 
the  Drisler  Studies  with  page  147.  Since  the  words  are  ar- 
ranged alphabetically,  it  will  be  unnecessary  to  cite  the  page 
on  which  the  word  is  treated  in  Drisler  Studies. 

acritudo:  for  the  archaic  character  of  the  ending  -tiido  see 
Cooper,  44,  and  Schmalz,  604  (  §  2a  )  :  "Die  Neigung  zur 
Abstraktion  in  den  Zeiten  des  Verfalls  zeigt  sich  ...  in 
Wiederaufnahme  der  .  .  .  von  den  Klassikern  vernachlassigten, 
. . .  aber  bereits  von  den  archaisierenden  Schriftstellern  der  cic. 


"'See  Georges,  s.v.  ferveo;  cf.  Vergil  Aen.  4.409. 

""See  Georges,  s.v.  parco;  Steele,  A.J. P.,  15.188. 

"'See  Weissenborn-Mueller    on    9.11.6;    Weissenborn    on    confieret, 
5-50.7- 


Archaism  in  Aulus  Gcllius  33 

und  der  folgenden  Zeit  gerne  aufgegriffenen  Bildung  mit  tudo, 
z.  B.  claritudo". 

canalicxda,  1 7.1 1.2:  the  statement  that  this  word  is  found 
only  in  LuciHus  and  Gellius  requires  correction.  It  occurs  also 
in  Varro.^-® 

finis,  in  4.1.6  signifies  'meaning'  rather  than  'termination' 
(correct,  then,  Drisler  Studies,  150).  Postgate,  Select  Elegies 
of  Propertius,  xci,  remarks:  "His  genders  are  sometimes 
archaic:  e.  g.  ptiluis  and  fi)iis  are  common..."  Finis  is 
masculine  in  1.3.8  and  3.16.1,  but  feminine  again  in  3.16.20. 

lac:  lade  is  read  as  the  nominative  of  this  word  in  19.8. 13 
cur  mel  et  vinum  atque  id  genus  cetera  numerum  multitudinis 
capiunt,  lacte  non  capiat?  With  what  is  said  under  this  word 
in  Drisler  Studies  concerning  the  identity  often  of  archaisms 
and  vulgarisms  compare  Woliflin,  Philologus,  34.  149.'^° 

partio:  add  12. 1.20,  and  Macrob.  5. 11. 15  (borrowed,  as  is 
so  much  in  Macrobius,  from  Gellius). 

specus  is  feminine  in  5. 14.18;  the  word  does  not  occur  at 
all  in  5.14.8  (correct  Drisler  Studies,  153).  Add  5.14.24  in 
cadcm  specu.  The  word  occurs  in  still  another  place,  but 
there  the  gender  is  not  clear;  see  2.28.1  specus  hiatusque  ter- 
rae. 

arbitrarius :'^^^  correct  the  reference  from  19. 1.5  to  19.1.15. 

cnmphisculus:  for  the  formation,  see  Edmund  Hauler  in 
Archiv,  5.  294,  and  Cooper,  191-192.  The  latter  holds  that 
the  form  is  plebeian,  not  archaic.  For  the  prevalence  of  di- 
minutives, especially  without  diminutive  force,  in  the  archaising 
period,  see  Schmalz,  674   (  §  68  ),  and  Cooper,  185-186.     In 


""R.R.  3.5.14.     For  Varro's  archaizing  tendencies  see  above,  note  64. 

'^"So  blieb  das  vulgarlatein  vielfach  hinter  den  fortschritten  der 
gebildeten  zuriick,  aber  es  bewahrte  sich  auch  einen  grosseren  reichthum 
an  formen  und  vvorten.  .  .  Darum  ist  das  vulgare  oft  mit  dem  archai- 
schen  identisch,  obschon  weder  alles  archaische  vulgar  ist  .  .  .  noch 
alles  vulgare  archaisch  zu  sein  braucht".  G.  Landgraf,  Phil.  Anz., 
15.608,  says:  "Archaismen  aber  sind  in  der  regel  identisch  mit  vulgiir- 
ismen".     See  also  Cooper,  xxi ;  above,  pages  9-10. 

"'For  the  archaic  character  of  adjectives  in  -arius  see  Cooper,  151- 
155- 


34  Archaism  in  Aulus  Gellius 

this  connection,  we  may  note  the  following  combinations: 
avicula  .  .  .  parva,  2.29.3;  porculis  .  .  .  minusculis,  4.1 1.6; 
funiculo  hrevi,  5.3.4;  tenuissimis  minutisque  ossiculis,  7.1. 10; 
surculi  .  .  .  ohlonguli,  i'j.(^.'j;  herediolum  tenue,  19.7.1.  A 
wholly  illogical  combination  is  largiores  laetioresque  in  con- 
viviis  invitatiunculas  vi)ii.,^^-  15.2.  in  lemm.  Compare  in  gen- 
eral Gellius's  handling  of  frequentatives :  see  on  adiutare, 
below,  page  35. 

cuius,  a,  um:  this  word  is  characterized  as  an  archaism  by 
Servius  on  Verg.  B.  3.1.^'^^ 

lepidus:  the  citations  given  under  this  word  may  be  greatly 
supplemented.  Add,  for  the  positive,  10.19.2,  12.6.1,  i7.i4-3» 
18.1.12;  for  the  superlative,  7.9.  in  lemm.,  13.11.1,  19.4.1,  19.9. 
in  lemm.,  19.9.5,  ip.H-i;  for  lepide  add  7.8.3,  9.3.2,  11.11.4, 
13.5. 10,  13. 10.3,  18.2.6.  The  statement  that  the  comparative 
lepidior  occurs  but  once  in  Gellius  and  once  in  Plautus  is  not 
correct.  See  Cell.  17.14.  in  lemm.  The  forms  of  this  adjective 
and  adverb  occur  at  least  twenty-five  times  in  Gellius.  It 
should  be  noted  also  that  illepidus  occurs  in  11.7.1,  18.4.10, 
19.9.7;  and  illepidc  in  11. 16.5,  16.12.  in  lemm.,  and  18.13.5. 
These  two  words  are  doubtless  to  be  regarded  as  archaisms. 
Both  are  used  by  Plautus.  The  former  is  cited  from  no 
author  later  than  Cicero  until  we  come  to  Gellius,  the  latter 
but  once  between  Cicero  and  Gellius,  and  then  from  the  elder 
Pliny. 

necessum:  as  a  help  toward  understanding  the  composite 
character  of  Gellius's  style,^^*  it  might  have  been  noted  here 
that  necesse  is  common  in  Gellius.^^^ 

plerique  omncs:'^^^  add  14.3. i  pleraque  omnia;  15. 7.1  pleris- 
que  omnibus;  17.5.4  plerique  omnes.  Plerique  omnes  occurs 
also  in  Pronto,  183  (Naber),  in  a  short  but,  from  our  present 
point  of  view,  very  interesting  sentence,  since  within   seven 

"*  Cooper,  186-187.  On  double  diminutives  see  e.g.  Abbott,  Repetition, 
80-82. 

^''See  Steele,  A.J.P.,  15.183. 

^'^T.A.P.A.,  25.6,  note  i. 

"'Cf.  5.I.3,  5-8.IO,  5.11.7,  S.I3-I,  5-18.5,  7-2.5.   16.8.8. 

"'Wolfflin,  Lat.  u.  rom.     Comparation,  41. 


Archaism  in  Aulus  Gcllius  35 

words  we  have  two  archaisms :  Plcriqnc  omnes  qui  earn  cu- 
raverant  frustra  fucrnnt.^''''' 

stcrilus,  a,  um  is  found  again  in  17.21.44.  In  6.1.2,  how- 
ever,  we  have  matron-  cius  din  stcrilcni  cxistiniata>n  iradunt. 

ad  in  tare:  on  frequentative  verbs  in  general  see  Cooper, 
210  ff.,  and  Schmalz.  633  (§35).  It  is  remarked  in  Drisler 
Studies,  161.  that  in  1.3. 13  GelHus,  in  paraphrasing  a  passage 
from  Cicero,  substitutes  adintarc  for  Cicero's  adinvarc.  So 
Quadrigarius,  a  favorite  of  GelHus,  uses  the  phrase  lingnatii 
exertarc  (19. 13. 12)  in  describing  Manlius's  fight  with  the 
Gaul,  whereas  Livy  7.5.10,  in  his  account  of  the  same  duel, 
writes  cxscrcrc  lingnam.  Additional  light  on  the  complete- 
ness of  Gellius's  failure  to  preserve  in  practice  the  true  force 
of  frequentatives  may  be  gained  from  a  study  of  the  follow- 
ing passages:  3.13.1  ventitarc  .  .  .  solitnm;  iyAg.2  solitnni 
dictitare ;  18.2.  in  lemm.  agitare  soliti  sijnns;  6.1.6  solitainsse 
.  .  .  ventitarc;  1.26.7  saef^e  .  .  .  disscrtainssc;  19.5.4  adsidne 
dictitabat;  20.8.1  agitare  erat  solitus;  10.8.3  i<Jem  factitatnm 
esse  credo  per  consuetudinem.  Compare  in  general  Gellius's 
handling  of  diminutives :  see  above,  page  33,  on  complnscu- 
1ns. 

coniinoliri:  for  verbs  compounded  with  con-  see  Cooper,  262 
ff.,  especially  265.  Gellius  borrowed  from  early  writers  con- 
digniis,  condigne,  commoliri,  coniplacerc,  consilescerc.  Com- 
murniuratio,  condecore,  confabricari,  conflacccscere,  congermi- 
nare,  and  contcmporancns  are  found  only  in  Gellius,  and  there 
but  once.  Several  compounds  with  con-  {compavcscere,  con- 
gelascere,  consarcinari,  convallare,  convelare,  convexare,  con- 
vexio)  appear  for  the  first  time  in  his  pages. '^^ 

indipisci:  add  12.1.24  and  Brix-Niemeyer'  and  Wagner  on 
Plant.  Trin.  224. 

odi,  odisse:  add  a  reference  to  Georges,  s.v.,  and  Steele, 
A.J.P.,   15.188. 

ad  atnussiui:  see  Xeue-Wagener.  2.670. 

adprimc:  see  Wofflin.  Lat.u.rom.  Comp..  17-18. 

'"  See  below,  page  43. 

"*  For  other  unusual  prepositional  compounds  in  Gcllius,  see  T.A.P.A., 
2513- 


3t>  Archaism  in  Aldus  Gcllius 

ampliter:  refer  to  Brix-Niemeyer^'  and  Wagner  on  Plaut. 
Trin.  1060;  Sonnenschein  on  Plaut.  Rud.  265;  Cooper,  200. 

ast:  see  Schmalz,  500  (§  252). 

clam  (as  prep,  with  accus.)  :  see  Holtze,  1.2 13;  Lindsay, 
The  Syntax  of  Plautus,  85 ;  Wolfflin  in  Archiv,  7.278 ;  Steele, 
A.J.P.,  15.187. 

compluriens:  note  that  this  form  appears  in  Gellius  1 7.2.21, 
as  well  as  in  6.3.5,  'the  single  passage  cited  in  Drisler  Studies. 
Hence  correct  the  statement  made  here  and  in  A.J. P.,  14.218, 
that  6.3.5  "is  the  only  passage  in  Latin  in  which  the  word  has 
been  preserved  naturally,  so  to  speak". 

cumprimis:  see  Wolfflin,  Archiv,  1.97;  Lat.u.rom.  Comp., 
18,25 ;  above,  page  29. 

fortassean:  correct  reference  from  5. 14.13  to  5.14.3;  and 
see  Neue-Wagener,  2.606,  for  full  list  of  citations. 

impendio:  add  6.1.5  ^"^  18. 12.2.  In  19.7. 10  it  is  said  of  the 
poet  Laevius,  item  fiere  .  .  .  impendio  infit,  id  est  'fieri  im- 
pense  incipit'.  Compare  Wolfflin,  Lat.u.rom.  Comp.,  20.  It 
may  be  noted,  too,  that  Gellius  uses  impense  three  times  with 
an  adjective,  in  the  phrase  impense  doctns:  10.24.10;  13. 10.4; 
19.7. 1.  The  only  other  example  of  this  use  seems  to  be  in 
Plaut.  Epid.  566  impense  improhiis  (neither  Naudet  nor  Gray 
makes  any  comment  on  the  word).  Gellius  uses  impense  with 
a  verb  in  9.9.15,  10.3.13,  11. 18. 18,  and  17.10.7.  But  this  is 
common,  being  found  frequently  in  the  first  century  of  the 
empire. 

inibi:  the  list  of  references  is  incomplete.  For  the  phrase 
atque  inibi,  add  the  lemmata  of  13.25,  14.6,  15.7,  15.27,  16.13, 
17.16,  and  18.2.  This  phrase  does  not  occur  in  14.7.9  or  in 
13.23.15  (cited  on  page  169).  In  the  latter  we  have  inibi 
auteni,  and  in  the  former  deinde  inibi.  Deinde  inibi,  however, 
is  practically  equivalent  to  atque  inibi}^^ 

nimis  quam:  add  Pronto  75  (Naber),  and  see  Wolfflin, 
Lat.u.rom.  Comp.,  27. 

numero:  see  Neue-Wagener,  2.601,  where  Hertz's  reading 
in  20.1.54  is  accepted  as  genuine.     Hosius  also  reads  numero 

"'  See  Neue-Wagener,  2.658. 


Archaism  i)i  Auliis  Gcllius  37 

against  Knapp's  conjecture  saepcnumero}*'*  In  support  of 
the  accepted  reading  may  be  noted  that  several  undoubted 
archaisms  occur  in  this  chapter:  ne  .  .  .  qiioque,  15/" 
quitast,  52. 

pone:  it  is  interesting  to  compare  Gellius's  words  in  i.ii.ii 
qui  pone  cum  loqiientem  staret,  with  Cicero's  in  1.11.16 
serviim  .  .  .  qui  staret  occultc  post  ipsum  cum  contionare- 
tur."- 

C.  Archaisms  of  J'ocabulary  Not  Previously  Noted. 

We  now  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  some  archaisms  of 
vocabulary  not  included  in  the  lists  of  the  Drisler  Studies 
(147-171). 

adfinitas  meaning  'relationship  by  marriage'  is  classical. 
With  the  figurative  meaning,  however,  it  is  rare  and  possibly 
archaic:  see  1.18.5.  4-I34.  7-i-i3-  Georges  and  Lewis  and 
Short,  in  addition  to  the  references  just  given,  cite  only  Varro, 
R.R.  1. 16  and  Quintilian,  1.6.24.  Add,  from  the  Thesaurus, 
Phaedrus,  4.14.2. 

aedntumus,  6.1.6  aeditumosque  eius  templi.  In  12.10.1  Gel- 
lius  himself  tells  us  that  in  his  time  the  word  was  obsolete  or 
obsolescent:  Aeditumus  verbum  Latinum  est  et  vetus.  .  . 
Sed  pro  eo  a  plerisque  nunc  aedituus  dicitur  nova  et  com- 
menticia  usurpatione,  quasi  a  tuendis  aedibus  appellatus. 
Evidently  GeUius  had  seen  or  heard  the  Latinity  of  aeditumus 
questioned.  \'arro  has  the  word:  R.R.  1.2;  1.6.9.  Cicero  uses 
it  once,  in  Topica  8.36. 

caldor,  17.8. 10  respondi  .  .  .  vinum  idcirco  minus  cito  con- 
gelascere,  quod  semina  quaedam  caldoris  in  sese  haberet ; 
19.4.4  caldoremque  omnem  de  summa  corporis  cute  cogat ; 
19.4.5.  The  word  is  cited  three  times  from  Varro  and  once 
from  Arnobius.  It  may  be  noted  that  in  17.8.  one  of  the  two 
chapters  in  which  caldor  is  found,  two  archaisms  occur  to- 
gether in  a  single  sentence:   17.8.8   Verbero,^*^  inquit   ridens 

'"To  what  Professor  Knapp  wrote  on  numcro  here  in  Drisler 
Studies,  170,  may  be  added  his  treatment  of  this  word  in  his  discussion 
of  Plautus,  .\mphitruo  180,  in  The  Classical  Review,  7.21-22. 

"'  See  above,  page  29. 

*"Cf.  the  note  on  adiutare   (ad  init.)   in  Drisler  Studies.  161. 

'**See  below,  page  39. 


38  Archaism  in  Aulus  Gellius 

Taurus,  nonne  is  curriculo'^*^^  atque  oleum  petis?  In  the  same 
paragraph  we  have  fervit^=fervet  (see  above,  page  32).  The 
language  of  the  entire  chapter  is  unusual.  Calorificus,  frigori- 
ficus,  incongelabilis  are  found  only  here  and  congelascere  is  of 
Gellius's  own  coinage  (see  on  comnwliri,  above,  page  35). 

censio,  10.28.2  ex  ista  censione  Servi  Tulli ;  16.10.13  cum 
iuventutis  inopia  esset,  in  militiam  tumultuariam  legebantur 
.  .  .  et  non  capitis  censione,  sed  ...  a  munere  officioque 
prolis  edendae  appellati  sunt.  Evidently,  here  we  have  to  do 
with  an  old  technical  phrase."^  For  Gellius's  legal  studies  and 
their  relation  to  his  archaizing  tendencies  see  above,  page  16. 
The  word  occurs  twice  in  Plautus,  both  times  in  a  jest,  but 
once  with  force  entirely  parallel  to  that  seen  in  Gellius. 

fretiis,  as  a  masculine,  fourth  declension  by-form,  is  found 
in  10.26.6  brevitas  tam  angusti  fretus,  qui  terram  Africam 
Hispaniamque  interfluit.  In  13.21,  Gellius  seeks  to  show 
(see  the  lemma)  that  the  better  writers  paid  more  regard  to 
euphony  than  they  did  to  grammatical  rules.  He  cites  various' 
passages  to  prove  his  point,  and  then  says  in  §  15:  Sicuti 
Marco  etiam  Ciceroni  mollius  teretiusque  visum,  in  quinta  in 
Verrem  frctu  scribere  quam  freto;  perangusto,  inquit,  fretu 
divisa.  Erat  enim  crassius  iam  vetustiusque,  perangusto  freto 
dicere.  Though  Gellius  makes  fretu  the  later  form,  and  char- 
acterizes freto  as  obsolete  already  in  Cicero's  day,  the  lexicons 
cite  only  two  other  examples  of  frctu  from  Cicero.  They 
give  numerous  others,  however,  from  earlier  writers,  En- 
nius,  Naevius,  Pacuvius,  Lucilius,  Varro,  Lucretius,  Porcius 
Licinius.  On  the  whole,  then,  fretu  in  Gellius  may  be  counted 
an  archaism  (especially  if  we  remember  that  to  him  Cicero  too 
was  vetus  scriptor:  see  above,  note  64). 

fiagitator,  17.6. 10  eam  pecuniam  cum  viro  forte  irata  repe- 
tere  instituit,  adponit  ei  flagitatorem.  For  this  sense  of  the 
word  cf.  Plant.  Most.  768;  Cic.  Brut.  5.18.  With  two  pas- 
sages from  Livy,  the  citations  for  the  word  cease.  Apparently 
it  was  obsolete  in  Gellius's  time. 

gaulus,  10.25.5,  is  one  of  a  list^*''  of  names  of  vessels  which 

'"See  below,  page  43.  "'See  Festus  (Miill.),  65. 

""  See  Drisler  Studies  on  lorea,  152. 


Archaism  in  Anlns  Gellius  39 

Gellius  on  a  certain  occasion  remembered  as  occurring  in  the 
veterum  lihri.  The  word  seems  to  be  found  elsewhere  only 
in  Plant.  Rud.  13 19.    It  is  defined  by  Festus,  96. 

halophanta,  8.10.  lemm.,  is  a  Greek  word.  However,  Plant. 
Cure.  4.1.2  is  the  only  citation  given  before  Gellius.  Cf. 
Non.   120.8   (Lindsay),  and  Fest.    (Miiller),   loi. 

halucinatio,  8.3.  lemm.  Non.  121.20  states  that  the  word  was 
used  by  the  vctcrcs.  See  Sen.  Vit.  Beat.  26.6;  Arn.  4.36,  6.8; 
Nettleship,  Contributions  to  Latin  Lexicography,  144. 

hariolatio,  15. 18.3.  Lewis  and  Short  do  not  cite  this  occur- 
rence but  mark  the  word  as  found  only  in  Cic.  Div.  1.3 1.66,  in 
a  quotation  from  Enn.  (Frag.  Trag.  42  Rib.).  Georges  gives 
only  the  two  instances  here  recorded. 

libentia,  15.2.7  cui  libentiae  gratiaeque  omnes  .  .  .  incogni- 
tae  sint.    The  word  occurs  elsewhere  only  in  Plautus."'' 

pracfica,  18.7.3  vos  philosophi  mera  estis,  ut  M.  Cato  (fr. 
inc.  19  J.)  ait,  mortualia ;  glosaria  namque  coliigitis  et  lexidia, 
res  taetras  et  inanes  et  frivolas  tamquam  mulierum  voces  prae- 
ficarum,"* 

sihonis,  10.25.2.  Lewis  and  Short  give  this  as  the  only  oc- 
currence.    But  see  Ennius  Ann.  504  (Vahlen). 

vasurn,  as  a  by- form  of  vas,  occurs  in  3.14.5  pars,  quae 
deest  ei  va^so,  though  in  the  same  paragraph  vas  stands  as  an 
accusative  in  a  passage  quoted  from  Ennius. ^^^  For  a  full  list 
of  examples,  see  Georges,  s.v.  vas. 

vitor,  12.3.4;  Plant.  Rud.  4.3.51;  Donatus  ad  Ter.  Eun. 
4.4.21;  Arn.  2.38;  Dig.  9.2.27  fin. 

•verbero,  a  term  of  abuse  quoted  by  Lewis  and  Short  only 
from  Plautus  and  Terence,  is  found  twice  in  Gellius.  1.26.8 
Quid  autem,  verbero.  nunc  ego  tibi  ira.sci  videor?  and  17.8.8 
Verbero  .  .  .  nonne  is  curriculo  atcjue  oleum  petis?  For 
other  archaisms  in  the  latter  chapter,  see  on  caldor  above 
(page  37). 


"'Cf.  Stich.  276;  Asin.  268  (name  of  goddess).  It  is  read  also  by 
Lorenz  in  Pseud.  381    (=3Q6  Goetz-Schoell)  :  see  his  note. 

""Cf.  Varro.  L.L.  7.70;  Varro.  Lucilius  and  Plant,  ap.  Xon.  66; 
Plant.  True.  495. 

"•Vahlcn,  .\nn.  536. 


40  Archaism  in  Aulus  Gellius 

illepidus:  see  above  on  lepidus  (page  34). 

medicinus  seems  to  stand  twice  as  an  adjective,  17. 16.2 
Mitridatem  ilium  Ponti  regem  medicinae  rei  .  .  .  sollertem 
fuisse;  18. 10.8  quantum  habui  temporis  subsicivi,  medicinae 
quoque  disciplinae  libros  attigi.  Medicina  ars  is  cited  from 
Varro  L.L.  5.93,  and  the  adjective  is  said  to  occur  also  in 
Hyginus  and  in  Augustinus.^^°  With  the  combination  medi- 
cinae rei  cf.  res  uxoria  =^  matrimoninm  1.6.3;  4-3-  ^^  lemm. 
res  cthica  1.2.4,  and  res  cibaria  6.1.8.  The  w^ord  early,  through 
ellipsis  of  ars,  officina,  or  the  like,  became  a  noun,  and  as  noun 
is  common  and  classical. 

nihili,  as  an  indeclinable  adjective,  is  found  in  2.14.2  tam- 
quam  stitisses  vanum  et  nihili  verbum  esset;  10. 19.2  Homo 
stulte  et  nihili;  1^.2.2  erat  autem  nihili  homo  et  nugator.  In 
paragraph  one  of  the  latter  chapter,  we  have  the  double  ar- 
chaism viderier  gestibat  (see  above,  pages  31-32).  For  nihili 
as  a  virtual  adjective,  cf.  Plaut.  Cas.  245  Unde  is,  nihili?;  Mil. 
180;  Asin.  472,  859;  Bacch.  904;  Pseud.  1086  (Lorenz:  see 
his  note);  Rud.  920;  Varro  L.L.  10.81;  Paul,  ex  Fest.  175. 
The  editors  of  Plautus  (e.  g.  Gray  on  As.  472,  Brix-Niemeyer^ 
on  Mil.  180,  Sonnenschein  on  Rud.  920)  do  not  adequately 
give  the  range  of  the  word  even  in  Plautus ;  they  afford  no 
hint  of  its  recurrence  in  Gellius.  In  fact  no  editor,  save 
Lorenz,  has  given  any  serious  attention  to  the  resemblances 
between  Plautine  Latin  and  the  Latin  of  the  archaists  (and, 
one  may  add,  Arnobius). 

percitus,  as  an  adjective,  occurs  in  2.12.4  populum  percitum 
et  amentem;  as  participle  it  appears  in  1 5.31.3  ira  percitus. 
In  its  finite  form  the  verb  is  cited  only  from  Plautus  (once), 
and  Lucretius  (three  times  at  least),  Terence,  Sallust,  Cicero, 
Livy,  and  then  not  again  until  Gellius.  Compounds  with 
per-  belong  especially  to  the  older  periods  of  the  language.^^^ 

pensus,  the  participle  of  pendo,  occurs  as  an  adjective,^: 
cams,  or  the  like,  apparently  only  in  Gellius,  12.5.7  carius 
pensiusqiie,  and  Plautus  Stich.  118  utra  sit  condicio  pensior, 
virginemne  an  viduam  habere. 

""  See  Lewis  and  Short. 
"'  Cooper,  284. 


Archaism  in  .lulus  Gcllius  41 

quercerus,  20.1.26  an  tu  forte  morbum  appellari  hie  putas 
aegrotationem  gravem  cum  febri  rapida  et  quercera  .  .  .  ? 
Quercera  tussis  occurs  in  a  fragment  of  Plautus,  cited  by 
Festus  (Priscian  gives  in  the  same  fragment  quercera  feh- 
ris)}^-  Quercera  febris  is  quoted  by  Festus  256,  from  Luci- 
lius.  In  Apuleius,  Apologia  35,  Hildebrand  and  Helm  read 
quercerum  as  a  noun.  See  Hildebrand's  note.  Arnobius, 
1.28,  uses  quercera  as  a  noun. 

adbibo,  2.22.25  ("o^  in  Cic).  Cf.  Plant.  Stich.  2.2.58; 
Ter.  Heaut.  2.1.8.  In  figurative  sense  it  occurs  in  Plant.  Mil. 
3.3.10;  As.  3.3.49;  Ovid  Tr.  3.5.14;  Horace  Ep.  1.2.67. 

claudere,  'to  halt',  'to  limp',  appears  in  1.7.20  At  si  explicuit 
diceret,  inperfecto  et  debili  numero  verborum  sonus  clauderet; 
4.7.4  numerus  clausurus  est;  13. 21. 10  sentias  suavitatem  soni- 
tus  claudere.  In  no  place,  it  will  be  noted,  can  the  conjuga- 
tion be  determined. ^^'^  The  verb  occurs  also  in  Caecilius, 
Cicero  (who  also  has  claudico),  Livy  (see  Weissenborn  on 
22.39.3),  and  Apuleius  (see  Hildebrand  on  Flor.  iv:  Vol. 
2.84). 

deiurare:  compare  deiuraret  1.3.20 ;  deiurasset  4.20.9;  deiu- 
rant,  11. 6.1  (note  simple  iuraverint  in  lemm.)  ;  deiurare,  1 1.6.5. 
In  6. 18. 10  deieraverant  occurs.  According  to  references  given 
both  in  Lewis  and  Short  ancl  in  Georges  the  word  is  archaic, 
found  only  in  ante-  and  post-classical  writers.  But  neither 
Georges  nor  Lewis  and  Short  treat  this  word  satisfactorily. 
The  former  omits  some  of  the  passages  cited  above,  and  the 
latter  states,  quite  erroneously,  that  the  form  deiuro  is  now 
retained  only  in  Gellius  1.3.20;  1 1.6.1.  For  the  forms  of 
peiuro,  obiuro  and  ad-iuro  in  Plautus.  with  -n-,  as  well  as  a  dis- 
cussion of  the  etymology,  see  Minton  Warren,  T.A.P.A., 
32.   110-114. 

exanclare,    12.5. 10.      This    is    Hosius's    conjecture.      Hertz 

""  See  Goetz-Schoell,  Fragmenta,  vs.  80. 

'""Cf.  Vogel,  23:  "Verisimile  est,  Gellium,  si  quidem  e  Terentii  (Eun. 
vs.  164"),  Sallustii  (hist.  III.  83.  p.  191  ;  98.  p.  300  Kr.)  ;  Frontonis  (p.  122 
Nieb.),  Ausonii  deiiique  et  Sjmmachi  exetnplis  coiijecturam  faccre  licet, 
ea  verbi  forma  usum  esse,  quae  est  claiido,  dc  qua  vid.  Priscian  x.  22. 
p.  514.  Antiquior  nimirum  erat  et  minus  pervolgata,  quam  claudeo, 
claudico". 


42  Archaism  in  Aulus  Gellius 

read  eluctari.     Exanclare  is  an  archaic  word.     For  citations^ 
see  Lewis  and  Short. 

gestito,  9.6.3.  The  following  are  the  only  citations  in  Lewis 
and  Short:  Plant.  Cist.  4.2.83  f . ;  Cure.  5.2.4;  Mil.  1.1.7; 
Poen.  1.2. 186;  Enn.  ap.  Cell.  1. 17.10  (  =  Scenica  302,  Vahlen). 
Georges  ascribes  the  word  also  to  Arnob.,  Treb.  Poll.,  and 
Solin. 

miiginari,  5.16.5  Sed  hie  aeque  non  diutius  muginandum 
(for  the  archaic  syntax,  see  above,  page  27;  below,  52), 
For  the  verb,  cf.  Lucil.  and  Att.  ap.  Non.  139;  Cic.  ad  Att., 
16.12. 1 ;  Paul,  ex  Fest.,  147. 

pudeo,  5.1.3,  is  fully  personal.^^* 

niminari,  with  the  meaning  'to  think',  'to  ponder',  occurs  in 
19.7.2  figuras  habitusque  verborum  nove  aut  insigniter  dic- 
torum  in  Laeviano  illo  carmine  ruminabamur.  It  seems  to 
have  this  meaning  only  in  Liv.  Andron.  ap.  Non.  166;  Varro 
ap.  Non.  ibid. ;  and  in  Varro  again  ap.  Non.  480. 

vieo,  12.3.4  a  viendo  'vitor'  <dictus  est>.  Gellius  is  here 
giving  examples  to  illustrate  the  fact  that  the  root  vowel  of  a 
derivative  does  not  always  retain  its  original  quantity.  As 
a  verb  (i.e.  in  forms  distinct  from  the  participle-adjective 
vietus)  the  word  is  cited  elsewhere  only  from  the  ante-classi- 
cal period.  Cf.  Lewis  and  Short,  and  Georges,  s.v. ;  Vahlen, 
Varia,  25,  and  the  citations  there  given;  Lucr.  2.1171. 

admodum  quam  seems  to  be  used  only  by  Gellius  19.9. 10 
voce  admodum  quam  suavi  versus  cecinit,  and  Plaut.  Amph. 
541  Ex  amore  hie  a.q.  saevos  est  (see  Ussing  and  Palmer  ad 
loc.  Naudet  made  no  comment).  The  latter  passage  is  not 
cited  by  Wolfflin,  Lat.u.rom.  Comp.,  28. 

casce,  in  i.io.  in  lemm.,  casce  nimis  et  prisce  loquentem,  is 
uTrai  €lpiqix€vov,  but  it  is  worth  while  to  note  that  its  adjective 
cascus  belongs  chiefly  to  early  Latin.  Cf.  Ennius  Ann.  24, 
in  Vahlen's  edition,  with  Vahlen's  note.  An  interesting  side- 
light is  thrown  on  Gellius's  vocabulary  by  his  use  of  an  archaic 
stem  in  the  very  chapter  in  which  he  tells  how  Favorinus  re- 
bukes a  young  man  for  using  old-fashioned  words.  This  is  an 
illustration  of  the  difference  between  Gellius's  theory  and  his 
^^  See  Knapp  in  A.  J.  P.,  16.63. 


Archaism  in  Aulus  Gelliiis  43 

practice/''^  In  the  same  chapter,  Gellius  uses  abhinc  with 
the  ablative.^^*^ 

commodum  appears  as  an  adverb  of  time  in  2.2.2  Taurus 
sectatoribus  commodum  dimissis  sedebat  pro  cubicuh  sui  fori- 
bus.  This  usage  is  ahiiost  entirely  confined  to  Plautus,  Ter- 
ence, and  Cicero's  letters. ^^^ 

curriculo  is  a  mere  adverb,  =  cito,  in  17.8.8  \^erbero,  nonne 
is  curriculo  atque  oleum  petis  ?^®*  Note  the  other  archaism 
{vcrbero:  see  above,  page  39)  in  this  short  sentence. 

eadem,  sc.  opera,  is  found  in  10. 1.3  as  an  adverb  of  time  = 
eodem  tempore,  or  even  as  equivalent  to  a  simple  'likewise' : 
Is  ad  me  rescripsit  petivitque,  ut  rationem  dicerem,  cur 
'tertium'  ac  non  'tertio'  scripsissem.  Id  etiam  adscripsit,  ut 
eadem  quid  super  illo  quoque  mihi  videretur  facerem  se  certi- 
orem.  This  use  seems  confined  elsewhere  to  Plautus  and 
Terence:  Capt.  293;  Merc.  802;  Mil.  303;  Poen.  617;  Pseud. 
333;  Trin.  581;  Heaut.  368;  Bacch.  49  eadem  biberis,  eadem 
dedero  tibi  ubi  biberis  savium.  In  the  same  sense  eadem 
opera  is  found  in  Bacch.  60;  Capt.  450;  Most.  1039.^^^  Lind- 
say, in  his  note  on  Capt.  459  (editio  maior),  remarks  that 
Plautus  uses  eodem  and  eadem  opera  of  future  actions  only ; 
to  one  instance,  Pers.  444-445,  abi  .  .  .  ad  forum:  eadem  istaec 
facito  mulier  ad  me  transeat  per  hortum,  our  Gellius  passage 
comes  close,  in  logical  implication,  if  not  in  form  (since  the 
clause  preceding  that  in  which  eadem  occurs  contains  a  virtual 
imperative). 

"*  Drisler  Studies,  146;  above,  page  27. 

'^' See  Hertz,  Vindiciae  Gellianae  Alterae,  31,  for  explanation  of  this 
usage ;  below,  page  49. 

'"  See  Neue-Wagener,  2.580.  For  commodum,  or  commodo  in  Apulei- 
us,  see  Hildebrand  on  De  Dogm.  Plat.  chap,  i,  vol.  2.174.  For  the  re- 
semblances between  the  language  of  Cicero's  letters  and  that  of  Plautus 
see  above,  note  22. 

"'  See  Lorenz  on  Plant.  Most.  ^62 ;  Brix-Niemeyer'  on  Mil.  523 ; 
Holtze.   1. 172;   Neue-VVagener,  2.599. 

"^*  The  list  of  references  given  in  X'eue-Wagencr,  2.634,  is  not  very 
serviceable  in  this  connection,  since  no  distinction  is  made  between 
passages  in  which  eadem  is  to  be  rendered  as  above,  and  those  passages 
in  which  the  meaning  is  purely  physical,  and  the  ellipsis  is  of  via  or 
f>arte.    Xo  reference  is  made  to  the  passage  in  Gellius. 


44  Archaism  in  Aulus  Gcllius 

frustra  esse^^^  is  said  of  persons  in  5.1.1  'Cum  philosophus\ 
inquit,  'hortatur, . . .  turn,  qui  audiunt,  si .  . .  obvias  vulgatas- 
que  laudes  effutiunt . .  .  turn  scias  et  qui  dicit  et  qui  audiunt 
frustra  esse'.  The  usage  is  found  several  times  in  Plautus, 
especially  in  the  phrase  ne  frustra  sis.  See  Lorenz  on  Mil. 
1422  and  on  Most.  567;  Ennius  Sat.  62  (Vahlen)  Qui  frus- 
tratur  is  frustra  est,  si  non  ille  est  frustra.  The  phrase  oc- 
curs in  this  use,  be  it  noted,  in  Sallust  (lug.  85),  whose  archa- 
izing tendencies  are  well  known.  Cf.  also  Apul.  De  Mag.  19 
frustra  es,  and  Pronto  183.9  (Naber)  Plerique  omnes  .  .  . 
frustra  fuerunt  (here  two  archaisms  occur  together:  see  above, 
page  34,  on  plerique  omnes).  Lorenz  on  Mil.  I.e.  wrongly 
refers  to  Fronto  189.3.  Note,  finally,  that  in  5.1.1  we  have 
another  archaism,  illi  =  illic.'^^'^ 

multuin,  as  a  strengthening  adverb  with  an  adjective,  ap- 
pears in  13.20.8  ipse  quoque  iam  multum  senex.  The  usage 
is  archaic  and  plebeian. ^'^- 

nimio,  as  a  strengthening  adverb  with  adjectives,  occurs  in 
1.3.25  cum  vero  amici  utilitas  nimio  est  amplior;  10.26.9 
nimio  confidentius ;  19.5.3  aquam  nivalem  .  .  .  hominibus 
potu  nimio  insalubrem  (twice,  it  may  be  noted,  with  a  com- 
parative, once  with  a  positive).  As  examples  of  nimio  with 
a  positive  Wolfiflin^^^  cites  Plant.  Bacch.  396,  770;  True.  4.1.6; 
Stich.  704;  Naev.  (vs.  13  in  Ribbeck's  Com.  Rom.  Frag). 
But  Ribbeck^  writes  nimium,  and  Langen,  Beit.  z.  Krit.  u. 
Erklar.  des  Plautus,  333-335,  maintains  that  riiniio  occurs  in 
Plautus  only  with  a  comparative;  with  the  positive  he  would 
read  nimium,  though  to  do  this  he  must  emend  in  at  least  one 
place.  Lorenz,  in  his  note  on  nimio  celerius,  Most.  72,  does 
not    discuss   this   point.      In    Bacch.    770    Lindsa}^    still    reads 

""See  Wolfflin,  Archiv,  2.1;  Nagelsbach,  Lateinische  St^listik^  577. 

"'Drisler  Studies,  169. 

^^  See  Lindsay  (editio  maior)  on  Capt.  272  non  multum  fuit  molesta 
servitus;  Schmalz,  613  (§  9,  Anm.  i)  ;  Wolfflin,  Lat.  u.  rom.  Comp., 
8-9;  Neue-Wagener,  2.581.  According  to  Wolfflin,  this  usage  is  found  at 
least  ten  times  in  Plautus,  never  in  Terence,  four  times  in  Horace's 
Satires  and  Epistles,  and  then  chiefly  in  "  archaisirende  oder  vulgare 
Auctoren". 

^^  Lat.  u.  rom.  Comp.,  24. 


Archaism  in  /lulus  GcUius  45 

Nimio  illaec  res  et  magiiae  (MSS  mane)  dividiae  mihi 
though  Langen  would  emend  nimio  to  nimis  and  mane  to  sane 
(Leo  reads  nimium).  So  in  True.  704  Lindsay  reads  tum 
illuc  nimio  magnae  melHnae  mihi ;  Langen  emends  to  nimiom 
(nimiujn),  and  Leo  accepts  this  reading.  In  Bacch.  396  nimio 
impendiosum  praestat  te  quam  ingratum  dicier  (which  equals, 
in  sense,  nimio  melius  est,  etc.,  or  nimio  satius  est,  etc.),  and 
Stich.  699-700  (not  cited  by  Wolfflin)  Utrum  Pontine  an 
Libero  imperium  te  inhibere  mavis?  SA.  Nimio  liquido  Li- 
bero,  a  comparative  is  clearly  present  in  sense.  On  the  basis, 
then,  of  Lindsay's^^*  excellent  text  of  Plautus  we  have  to  say 
that  Plautus  used  nimio  with  both  positives  and  comparatives, 
though  more  frequently  with  the  latter;  Gellius's  use  of  the 
word,  then,  is  in  exact  agreement  with  Plautus's.  For  nimio 
with  a  comparative,  see  Most.  y2,  442;  Bacch.  151.  nimio  plus, 
found  e.g.  Bacch.  122,  Most.  1103,  is  not  uncommon:  see  Lucr. 
5.988;  Horace  C.  1. 18.15;  1.33.1;  Epp.  1. 10.30;  Livy  (see 
Weissenborn  on  1.2.3).  Hor.  Epp.  2.1. 198  has  ni]nio  plura. 
Cf.  also  Antonius  ap.  Cic.  ad  Att.  10.8A.1.  See  Schmalz,  Lat. 
Synt.,  §  97.  Gellius  also  uses  nimium  in  this  way.  See 
17.21.47  non  nimium  longe ;  19.7.13  nimium  poetica;  20.1.27 
morbus  .  .  .  non  febriculosus  neque  nimium  gravis.  This  is 
especially  characteristic  of  Plautus. ^"'^^ 

oppido'^^'''  is  forcibly  characterized  by  Quint.  8.3.25  as  obso- 
lete, yet  it  occurs  in  Gellius  13.5.9  oppido  bonum  (sc.  vinum). 
oppido  quam  is  found  in  2.23.3  oppido  quam  iacere  atque 
sordere  incipiunt ;  15. 30.1  oppido  quam  .  .  .  inepti  et  f  rivoli ; 
16.7. 1  oppido  quam  verba  finxit  praelicenter ;  17.12. i  oppido 
quam  libens. 

prorsus  retains  its  original  physical  meaning  in  2.30.4  venti 
a   septentrionibus   ex   altiore   caeli    parte   in   mare   incidentes 

'"Lindsay,  Sjntax  of  Plautus,  80  (§  3),  discusses  nimio  very  inade- 
quately; he  remarks  merely  "normally  with  Comparative,  but  cf.  Bacch. 
770,  True.  704,  Naevius  com.  13". 

"'Langen,  I.  c,  gives  over  thirty  examples.  See  Gildersleeve- 
Lodge,  439,  N.3. 

"•See  Schmalz,  613  (§  9.  Anm.  i),  page  665  (§  37,  ad  fin. :  the  section 
is  labelled  ".Vrchaismen")  :  Xeue-Wagener,  2.602.  Schmalz  notes  that 
oppido  occurs  in  .Vpuleius,  but  makes  no  reference  to  Gellius. 


46  Archaism  in  Aulus  Gellius 

deorsum  in  aquarum  profunda  quasi  praecipites  deferuntur 
undasque  faciunt  non  prorsus  impulsas,  sed  iniitus  commo- 
tas.  The  meaning  is  fixed  by  §  5  Austri  vero  .  .  .  inferiores 
et  humiles  per  suprema  aequoris  euntes  protrudunt  magis 
fluctus  quam  eruunt.  Cf.  16.19.17  Turn  Arionem  prorsus  ex 
eo  loco  Corinthum  petivisse.  See  Hertz,  Vindiciae  Gellianae 
Alterae,  60.  In  9.4.6  Hertz  reads,  though  doubtfully,  vestigia 
pedum  habentes  retro  porrecta,  non  ut  ceterorum  hominum, 
prosum  spectantia ;  so  Hosius.  Both  Hertz  and  Hosius  follow 
the  conjecture  of  H.  Hagen,  in  Bursian's  Jahresber.,  1873, 
1415;  the  MSS  are  corrupt.  For  other  examples,  see  Cato  ap. 
Fest.  234;  and  Neue-Wagener,  2.746.  In  Plant.  Pseud.  955 
the  Palatine  text  gives  non  prorsus  verum  ex  transversa  cedit. 
The  Ambrosian  palimpsest,  according  to  Studemund's  Apo- 
graphon,  clearly  shows  NONPROSUSUE.  But  editors  (e.g. 
Lindsay,  Morris,  Lorenz,  Leo)  give  the  verse  as  it  is  cited 
in  Varro  L.L.  7.81  Ut  transvorsus,  non  provorsus  cedit,  quasi 
cancer  solet.^*'^  provorsus,  if  read,  is,  of  course,  the  original 
form  of  prorsus,  prosus,  prorsum,  prosum. 

rarenter,'^^^  3-i6.i  ;  17.8.9.  In  10.15.4  the  word  is  probably 
to  be  ascribed  to  Fabius  Pictor. 

tractim,^^^  4.6.6  littera  <i>  scilicet  tractim  pronuntiata; 
6. 10. 1 ;  6.20.3  vocalis  .  .  .  tractim  sonat. 

Without  doubt  Professor  Knapp  is  correct  in  his  statement^^° 
that  Gellius's  favorite  authors  were  Plautus,  Ennius,  and  Cato. 
We  should,  then,  expect  Gellius  to  borrow  many  words  from 
his  favorites.  Even  a  casual  examination  of  the  word  lists  in 
the  Drisler  Studies  and  in  this  paper  will  prove  that  such  is 
the  case. 

The  following  words  or  uses  of  words  seem  to  be  taken 
from  Plautus  :^^^  ambulacrum,  fictura,  fidicina,  ingratis,  porcu- 


^"  One  wonders  why  the  editors  forget  that  the  ancients  do  not  always 
cite  accurately;  see  e.  g.  Jebb  on  Sophocles,  Antigone,  223,  909  ff. 

"*See  Neue-Wagener,  2.735. 

"'  See  Neue-Wagener,  2.567,  where  it  is  cited  from  Plautus,  Ennius, 
Lucretius,  Vergil,  Sempronius  Asellio. 

""  Drisler  Studies,  132-134. 

"'See  T.  A.  P.  A.,  28  (1897)-  vi. 


Archaism  in  Aldus  Gellvus  47 

lus,  saviatio,  scitamenta,  symbola,  amasius,  condignus,  crucia- 
bilis,  cuias,  exoticus,  lepidus,  manifestarius,  ridicularius,  sum- 
mas,  inceptare,  esitare,  indipisci,  percupio,  protolli,  perservire, 
discussed  in  the  Drisler  Studies.  From  the  present  paper  may- 
be added  curriculo,  flagitator,  libentia,  verbero,  nihili,  pensus, 
quercerus,   commodum,   eadem,   multum,   nimio. 

Citations  from  Ennius,  Cato,  and  Varro  are  extremely 
frequent  in  the  notes  in  both  papers.  Thus  we  find  GelHus's 
love  of  the  older  writers  and  his  deliberate  imitation  of  them 
proven  from  two  independent  lines  of  research:  first,  a  col- 
lection of  the  passages  in  which  he  refers  to  them,  always  in 
the  highest  terms  of  commendation ;  and,  secondly,  a  careful 
study  of  his  vocabulary. 


PART  II 

Archaisms  of  Syntax 

Turning  now  to  archaisms  of  syntax,  we  shall  dwell  first  on 
some  points  in  Gellius's  use  of  the  cases. 

In  16.19.10  parco  is  constructed  with  the  accusative:  Tum^ 
ilium  .  .  .  vitam  modo  sibi  ut  parcerent  oravisse.  Cf.  Plaut. 
Most.  104  (a  corrupt  line)  ;  Cure.  381 ;  Cato,  R.R.  155.  See 
Sonnenschein-  and  Fay  on  Most.  104  and  Lorenz's  critical  note 
on  that  verse  (pages  206-207);  Nettleship  on  Aen.  10.532; 
Schmalz,  372  (§  84).  In  Apul.  Met.  1.2,  1.8,  we  find  in  the 
editions  parco  in  and  acc./^-  two  manuscripts,  however  (R,  f ) 
show  parco  with  the  accusative.  See  Hildebrand  ad  loc. 
Servius  on  Aen.  10.532  says  parco  with  accusative  was  used  by 
Plautus,  Lucilius  and  Ennius ;  see  Conington  ad  loc,  Steele, 
A.  J.  P.  15.179. 

euro  takes  the  dative  in  1 7.9.1  Libri  sunt  epistularum  C. 
Caesaris  ad  C.  Oppium  et  Balbum  Cornelium,  qui  rebus 
eius  absentis  curabant.  Gronovius  ad  loc.  remarks  on  the 
reading  that  it  is  "doctius  quam  ut  potuerit  ab  librario  venire". 
Cf.  Plaut.  Rud.  182  si  tu  de  illarum  cenaturus  vesperi's,  illis 
curandum  censeo,  Sceparnio ;  Rud.  146  Amori  haec  curat, 
tritico  curat  Ceres  (here  Professor  Sonnenschein  remarks, 
"euro  with  dat.  'care  for'  is  ante-  and  post-classical")  ;  Trin. 
1057  Sed  ego  sum  insipientior  qui  rebus  curem  publicis  (see 
Brix-Niemeyer^  ad  loc);  True.  137;  Att.  143  Ribbeck.  In 
later  Latin  the  dative  is  to  be  found  also  in  Apuleius :  Hilde- 
brand, 2.1 17,  on  De  Deo  Socr.  2,  cites  De  Deo  Socr.  again, 
cap.  16;  De  Mag.  36;  De  Mundo,  30.  Cf.  also  Macrob. 
1. 14.6  sacerdotes,  qui  curabant  mensibus  ac  diebus ;  Tert. 
Apol.  46;  Pronto  228.  19  (Naber)  Tum  lovem  ferunt  .  .  . 
cum  suo  corde  agitasse  de  suis  germanis  fratribus  unum 
praeficere,  qui  nocti  atque  otio  hominum  curaret.  See 
Schmalz,  372  (§  84),  and,  more  particularly,  C.  F.W.  Miiller, 
Syntax  des  Nominativs  und  Akkusativs  in  Lateinischen  (Sup- 

"*The  construction  here  is  akin  to  that  seen  in  Lucr.  6.399  cur  ipse 
sinit  neque  parcit  in  hostis.     See  Professor  W.  A.  Merrill,  ad  loc. 


Archaism  in  Aldus  Gclliiis  49 

plement  to  Stolz,  Historische  Grammatik),  123-124.  Miiller 
notes  that  procurarc  also  is  construed  with  the  dative,  e.g. 
in  Plautus,  Apuleius,  and  the  law  writers  (so  in  a  senatus 
consultum  ap.  Gell.  4.6.2).  We  may,  then,  refer  here  again 
to  Gellius's  legal  studies  as  a  factor  in  the  development  of 
his  style:  see  above,  page  38,  on  ccnsio;  below,  note  175. 

capitis  is  used  with  pcrd<cre  in  1.3.4  Ita  lex  fuit,  uli  eum 
hominem  condemnari  necessum  esset.  Aut  amicus  igitur 
capitis  perdendus  aut  adhibenda  fraus  legi  fuit.  For  the 
phrase,  which  is  evidently  modelled  on  capitis  dauinarc,  cf. 
Plaut.  Asin :  132  capitis  te  perdam  ego  et  filiam ;  Bacch.  489 
Egone  ut  illam  mulierem  capitis  non  perdam?  Mil.  371  quern 
pol  ego  capitis  perdam.  In  the  Brix-Niemeyer'*  edition  of 
the  Miles  Gloriosus  (1901),  there  is  no  hint  that  the  phrase 
recurs  after  Plautus.  Gray,  too,  on  As.  132  is  silent  on  this 
point. 

intcrficcre  is  used  with  ace.  and  abl.  in  12.7.2  Eadem  mulier 
virum  ct  filinm  .  .  .  venenis  clam  datis  vita  inter fecerat.  Cf. 
Plaut.  True.  518  Salve,  qui  me  interfecisti  paene  vita  et  lumine. 
Naudet  (see  his  note  on  True.  2.6.37)  was  aware  that  the  con- 
struction under  discussion  occurred  in  Gellius. 

abhinc  is  twice  coupled  with  the  ablative,  instead  of  with 
the  accusative;  see  1.10.2  sermone  abhinc  multis  annis  iam 
desito  uteris,  and  14. 1.20  centesimo  usque  abhinc  saeculo. 
Hertz,  Vind.  Gell.  Alt.,  31,  defends  this  construction  against 
Madvig's  criticism  (expressed  in  his  Adversaria  Critica,  2). 
Part  of  Hertz's  answer  deserves  to  be  quoted  here.  Madvig 
had  said  that  there  was  no  reason  to  suppose  that  Gellius  had 
departed  in  1.10.2  from  the  "perpetua  lex"  according  to  which 
abhinc  was  coupled  with  the  ace.  Hertz  rejoins,  inter  alia, 
thus :  "Aber  G.  kehrt  sich  eben  nicht  an  solche  perpetua  lex, 
d.h.  an  den  Sprachgebrauch  der  sogenannten  mustergiiltigen 
Classiker  KaT*c^o;(i7v,wenn  er  bei  den  von  ilim  bev^orzugten 
archaischen  Schriftstellern  einen  abweichenden  seltenen  Ge- 
brauch  findet  .  .  .  Und  so  schloss  G.  sich  audi  hier  an  Plau- 
tus .  .  .  ".     Hertz  has  in  mind  Most.  494;  see  Lorenz's  note. 


50  Archaism  in  Aulus  Gellius 

For  an  archaism  of  vocabulary  in  this  chapter  see  above,  page 
42,  on  casce. 

penetrare  is  used  with  a  reflexive  pronoun  in  5. 14. 18  specum 
.  .  .  nanctus  remotam  latebrosamque,  in  earn  me  penetro  et 
recondo,  and  13.10.1  Labeo  Antistius  ...  in  grammaticam 
sese  atque  dialecticam  litterasque  antiquiores  altioresque  pene- 
traverat.  The  construction  seems  to  be  found  elsewhere  only 
in  Plautus.  Brix-Niemeyer^  on  Trin.  146  cite  penetrare  se 
from  Amph.  250,  True.  44,  and  Trin.  276;  penetrare  me  from 
Trin.  291,  314;  penetrare  pedem  from  Men.  400,  816.  They 
state  also  that  in  Bacch.  66  the  verb  is  intransitive,  but  Goetz- 
Schoell  read  there  penetrem  me  (after  Bothe).  Lindsay,  with 
extraordinarily  bad  punctuation,  reads :  Quid  ego  metuam, 
rogitas,  adulescens  homo?  penetrare  [me]  huius  modi  in 
palaestram,  ubi  damnis  desudascitur?  The  question-mark 
after  homo  should  be  changed  to  a  comma.  Professor  Ben- 
nett's treatment  of  this  construction  in  his  Syntax  of  Early 
Latin,  Vol.  I — The  Verb  (page  5,  under  §  3)  is  inadequate. 

Gellius  several  times  has  the  genitive  of  a  noun  in  depend- 
ence on  the  genitive  of  a  gerund  :^^^  cf.  3.16.1  Multa  opinio 
est  .  .  .  gigni  hominem  septimo  rarenter,  numquam  octavo, 
saepe  nono,  saepius  numero  decimo  mense,  eumque  esse  homi- 
num  gignendi  summum  finem;  4.1 5.1  Elegantia  orationis  Sal- 
lustii  verborumque  fingendi  et  novandi  studium  cum  multa 
prorsus  invidia  fuit;  5.10.5  Euathlus  .  .  .  eloquentiae  discen- 
dae  causarumque  orandi  cupiens  fuit;  16.8.3  fecisse  videtur 
eum  librum  Aelius  s^ii  magis  admonendi  quam  aliorum  docendi 
gratia;  7.14.4  non  sane  dignum  esse  imponendi  poenae  studio 
visum  est.^^*  The  construction  is  found  in  Plautus,  Terence, 
Varro,  and  Cicero :  see  Brix-Niemeyer®  on  Plaut.  Capt.  852 ; 
Draeger  2.831,  832;  Gildersleeve-Lodge,  §  428,  N.  i;  Holtze 
2.54;  Roby,  2.1xviii.     One  example  is  cited  from  Pronto,  188 

"^  For  another  view  of  the  construction,  see  below,  pages  51-52. 
However  the  construction  is  to  be  explained,  we  have  to  do  here  with 
a  usage  obsolete  by  Gellius's  time. 

"*  Hertz  defends  his  readings  in  the  passages  cited  above  in  Vind. 
Gell.  Alt.,  58,59  in  a  full  discussion.  Hosius,  be  it  noted,  reproduced 
all  these  readings. 


Archaism  in  Aulns  Gcllius  51 

(Naber)  :  Neque  enim  cum  alio  ullo  .  .  .  mihi  .  .  .  est  .  .  . 
tantus  usus  studioniiu  bonarumqiie  artium  communkandi. 

Three  things  may  be  noted  in  this  connection. 

(i)  In  5.10.5  eloquentiae  discendae  causarumque  orandi 
cupiens  fuit,  the  normal  and  the  abnormal  construction  appear 
together.  On  such  inconsistencies  compare  the  remarks  made 
above,  page  27,  and  Hertz,  Yindiciae  Gellianae  Alterae,  59 : 
"wenn  aber  G.  diese  Construction  sonst  ofter  in  normaler 
Weise  anwendet,  so  ist  es  bei  ihm  nicht  nur  ohne  Anstoss, 
sondern  recht  im  Charakter,  wenn  er  audi  einmal  eine  anomale 
und  seltene  Form  gebraucht,  sei  es  nach  dem  Vorbilde  des 
Ennius  und  des  Cicero,  sei  es  nach  dem  des  Ennius  allein  oder 
schliesslich  ....  ohne  einen,  wenigstens  ohne  einen  uns  be- 
kannten  Vorganger". 

(2)  In  7.14.4  the  dependent  genitive  is  in  the  singular. 

(3)  If  we  accept  the  theory  that  in  the  examples  quoted 
above  the  genitive  of  the  noun  depends  on  the  gerund,  we  may 
find  a  simple  explanation  of  such  a  familiar  idiom  as  that 
seen  e.g.  in  Cicero  in  Cat.  1.7  multi  principes  civitatis  Roma 
non  tarn  sni  conservandi  quani  tuorum  consiliorum  reprimen- 
dorum  causa  profugerunt.  Sui  may  here  well  be  a  pronoun, 
depending  upon  the  gerund  as  objective  genitive.  This  view 
has  occasionally  been  upheld,  e.g.  by  Allen  and  Greenough  in 
their  note  on  this  passage,  and  in  their  Latin  Grammar  (504. 
c).  But  other  Latin  Grammars  in  common  use — e.g.  Bennett, 
339-5»  Gildersleeve-Lodge,  428  R.i. — see  a  gerundival  construc- 
tion. Sui  is  in  that  case,  of  course,  neuter,  not  masculine, 
meaning  'their  own  being'  or  the  like. 

Yet  another  view  of  the  construction  is  held  by  competent 
scholars.  According  to  Schmalz,  444,  in  all  the  expressions 
cited  above,  the  two  genitives  are  equally  dependent  on  the  one 
governing  noun;  so  Bennett.  Syntax  of  Early  Latin.  V^ol.  I. — 
The  Verb,  449  (under  4).  So,  too,  in  effect  Roby.  in  his 
Latin  Grammar  (1874),  2.1xviii.  This  view  appears  need- 
lessly complex,  and  seems  to  disregard  the  plain  implications 
of  language,  in  order  to  find  a  way  of  escape  from  the  ad- 
mission of  a  nonclassical  construction  into  Plautus.  Surelv,  in 
this  instance,  one  need  not  resort  to  extreme  measures  in  the 


52  Archaism  in  Aulns  Gclliiis 

attempt  to  bring  this  construction  into  harmony  with  classic 
usage,  for,  to  remain  entirely  within  the  limits  of  the  present 
paper,  we  should  still  have  to  explain  euro  and  parco  with  the 
accusative,  penetro  with  a  reflexive  pronoun,  etc.  (see  above, 
pages  48-50).  The  editors  of  Plautus,  however,  have  not 
infrequently  accepted  the  explanation  adopted  in  the  present 
paper:  see  e.  g.  Elmer  and  Hallidie  on  Capt.  852.  Professor 
Morris,  however,  in  his  note  on  the  passage  harks  back  to 
Roby's  view  (so,  too,  Brix-Niemeyer'^')  ;  Lindsay  ad  loc. 
(editio  maior)  quotes  with  approval  part  of  Professor  Mor- 
ris's note,  but  not  enough  to  show  to  one  who  did  not  have 
Professor  Morris's  whole  note  before  him  what  view  he  took 
of  the  construction  as  a  whole.     See  also  Kiihner-,  2.744-745. 

Gellius,  at  times,  joins  an  accusative  to  a  neuter  gerundive 
/  coupled  with  est  in  an  impersonal  construction :  4.9.9  templa 
quidem  ac  delubra  .  .  .  quae  non  volgo  ac  temere,  sed  cum 
castitate  caerimoniaque  adeundum  .  .  .;  5.16.5  Sed  hie  ea  quae 
non  diutius  muginandum  (so  Hertz.  Hosius,  however,  after 
Petschenig,  reads:  Sed  hie  aeque  non  diutius  muginandum). 
Hertz  discusses  the  readings  in  Vind.  Gell.  Alt.,  50-51.  See 
also  Kiihner^,  2.734;  Draeger,  2.821 ;  Schmalz,  441.  According 
to  Schmalz,  the  construction  occurs  once  in  Plautus    (Trin. 

869),    "ofters    bei    Lucr Varro    und    Catul bei 

Verg.  und  seinen  Nachahmern,  nirgends  bei  Caes.,  Sail.,  Liv., 

Tac Spater  lesen  wir  bei  Juristen,^'^.  .  .  bei  Tert.,  Pall. 

4  .  .  .  "  Gellius,  it  will  be  noted,  is  not  mentioned.  Kiihner, 
too,  fails  to  note  that  the  construction  occurs  in  Gellius. 

The  construction  was  briefly  discussed  long  ago  (1874)  by 
Roby,  Latin  Grammar,  2.1xxii  fif.  He  gives  a  list  of  examples 
meant  to  be  exhaustive  (except  for  Varro),  but  cites  no  in- 
stance from  Gellius.  See  also  various  editors,  e.g.  Brix-Nie- 
meyer^  on  Plant.  Trin.  869 ;  Munro  and  Merrill  on  Lucr. 
I.I  1 1  (especially  the  authorities  referred  to  by  Merrill)  ;  Ellis 
on  Catullus,  39.9. 

A  most  interesting  passage  in  this  connection  is  Cicero,  Cato 
Maior  6  quam  (viam)  nobis  quoque  ingrediundum  sit.  See 
Reid  ad  loc.  (page  75 ;  also  pages  27-28)  ;  Reisig-Haase,  Vorle- 

"'^  See  above  on  censio,  page  38;  page  48,  s.v.  euro,  ad  fin. 


Archaism  in  Aulus  GcUins  53 

sungen,  3776.  Reisig-Haase  see  here  a  deliberate  archaism ; 
Professor  Reid,  however,  holds  that  Cicero  is  not  imitating 
Cato  Censor,  since  in  the  extant  writings  of  Cato  the  con- 
struction does  not  occur.  Schmalz,  441,  after  citing  Cicero, 
CM. 6,  and  Scaur.  13,  as  giving  examples  of  the  accusative  in 
dependence  on  the  gerundive,  says:  "(Cicero)  mag  sich  ge- 
scheut  haben,  vom  Deponens,  dessen  transitive  Bedeutung  sich 
nicht  fest  ins  Bewusstsein  eingelebt  hatte,  die  personliche 
Konstruktion  zu  verwenden". 

According  to  Schmalz,  465,  the  supine  in  -um  is  very  com- 
mon in  Plautus,  Terence,  and  old  Latin  generally,  less  com- 
mon in  Cicero  and  Caesar,  more  frequent  again  in  Sallust, 
V^arro,  in  the  Bell.  Afr.  and  Livy.  "In  der  nachliv.  Prosa", 
he  continues,  "gehort  das  Supin  fast  nur  den  Archaisten  und 
den  von  Sail.  u.  Liv.  abhangigen  Schriftstellern  an".^^"  While 
the  accusative  of  the  supine  is  common  in  Gellius,  it  is  much 
more  frequent  with  an  object  than  without.  For  the  supine 
without  an  object  see  6.14.8  quos  .  .  .  legaverant  impetratum ; 
1 2. 1 3.3  issem  .  .  .  sciscitatum.  The  following  are  examples  of 
the  supine  with  an  accusative:  2.29.6  Dum  .  .  .  iret  cihum 
pullis  quaesitum;  3.13.2  cognoscit  currere  eos  auditiim  Callis- 
tratum;  6.3.7  socios  .  .  .  defensum  conservatunique  pergit ; 
6.3.44  servatum  ire  socios  niteretur;  9.15.3  It  auditum  (sc. 
eum)  lulianus;  10.6.2  Utinam  .  .  .  frater  .  .  .  istam  mnlti- 
tudiuevi  perditum  eat;  10. 19.3  qui  .  .  .  pcccatmn  sitiini  .  .  . 
excmptum  purgatnmque  ibat ;  12.1.2  Eamus  et  piicrum  visum 
et  patri  gratulatum ;  12. 1.9  Quod  sit  .  .  .  odio  dignum  .  .  . 
hominem  .  .  .  interfectuni  ire;  14.6. i  aditituiii  oniatumqwe 
volo  ire  N^octcs  tuas;  14.6.5  Nam  meae  Xoctes.  quas  instntctu»i 
ornatiimqiic  isti ;  16.11.6  Psyllos  .  .  .  decretumque  fecisse  uti 
.  .  .  iure  belli  res  pctitmn  proficisceretur ;  18.5.3  Eamus  .  .  . 
auditum.  .  Astum  Ennianistam;   16.5.9  qui  dominum.  .  .salu- 

"'See  the  statistics  in  Draeger,  2.857-865,  especially  §  608;  American 
Journal  of  Philology.  32.29,  note  i,  in  a  review  of  Vahlen's  Ennius ; 
Grandgent,  §  103;  Bennett.  Syntax  of  Early  Latin,  r.  §  453  ff. ;  Lindsay, 
Synta.x  of  Plautus.  pages  76  ff. ;  Gildcrslecve-Lodge.  434.  note  3; 
Frohenius,  Die  Syntax  des  Ennius  ^  137  (=page  67).  While  the  ac- 
cusative of  the  supine  is  frequent  in  .\puleius,  it  is  significant  that  no 
instance  of  the  supine  with  an  accusative  is  cited. 


54  Archaism  in  Aulus  Gellius 

tatum  venerant.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  construction  occurs 
chiefly  in  dependence  on  forms  of  ire:  see  again  Schmalz,  465; 
Draeger  §  609. 

Twice  GelHus  uses  opus  est  with  the  ablative  of  a  perfect 
passive  participle:  14.2. 16  Atque  illud  amplius  ambigi  ac  dubi- 
tari  scio,  debeatne  iudex  inter  cognoscendum  ea,  quae  dicto 
quaesitoque  opus  est,  dicere  et  quaerere;  15.22.8  ait  in  quiete 
cervam  .  .  .  quod  opus  esset  facto,  praedicere.  The  presence 
of  quae  and  quod  in  these  examples  makes  them  but  the  more 
noteworthy.  See  Lorenz  on  Plaut.  Most.  48 ;  Dziatsko-Hauler^ 
on  Ter.  Phorm.  584;  Holtze,  1.139-141 ;  Kiihner^  2.  §  128; 
Draeger  2.780 ;  Reisig-Haase,  Vorlesungen,  392 ;  Bennett,  Syn- 
tax of  Early  Latin,  1.439-440. 

I  have  made  an  entirely  independent  examination  of  the  pre- 
positions in  Gellius.  On  comparing  my  results  with  what  had 
already  been  done  in  this  field,  I  found  that  (with  possibly  three 
exceptions  which  are  discussed  below)  my  own  investigations 
failed  to  reveal  any  clear  examples  of  archaistic  usage  that  had 
not  already  been  considered  by  Professor  Knapp."^ 

It  will  be  sufficient,  then,  in  the  case  of  the  prepositions  which 
have  already  been  considered  (consult  note  177,  below),  merely^ 
to  give  a  list  of  the  phrases  in  which  they  occur  and  refer  to 
the  page  on  which  they  are  discussed.  It  is  not  intended  that 
the  citations  under  each  example  shall  be  exhaustive. 

a:  16.6.8  a  te  rogavi;  17.10.7  oravitque  a  suis  amicissimis ; 
13. 31. 10  cum  valebo  ab  oculis  (l.c.14). 

absque:  ^^^2.26.20  absque  te  .  .  .  uno  forsitan  lingua  profecto 
Graeca  longe  anteisset;  2.2.7  absque  praeiudicio. 

ad:  6.17.11  revises  ad  me;  18.8.2  quod  ad  se  .  .  .  non  viseret; 
13. 31. 10  revise  ad  me;  19.10.1  ad  Frontonem  ...  ire  et  visere 
(1.C.6). 

clani:'^''^  2.23.16  ea  res  clam  patrem  fuit  (l.c.6). 

cum  (a  use  of  cum  not  included  in  Notes  on  Prepositions)  : 
1 8. 10.7  cum  dis  bene  volentibus  opera  tua  sistas  hunc  nobis 
sanum  atque  validum  quam  citissime.     Schmalz,  §   139,  says 

"'Notes  on  Prepositions  in  Gellius,  T.  A.  P.  A.,  25  (1894).  ^-32- 

"'  See  Drisler  Studies,  167. 

"'See  Drisler  Studies,  168;  above,  page  36. 


Archaism  in  Aulus  Gellius  55 

that  this  phrase  occurs  only  in  Ennius,  Cato,  and  GelHus.  The 
passages  are  Ann.  201   (Vahlen)  ;  R.  R,  141. 

in:  3.1.4  in  eo  ipse  quaerendo  fui;  3.  7.  12  in  exspectando 
sunt;  1 1.5.3  ^^  quaerendo  semper  considerandoque  sunt;  11. 
16.6  in  cogitando  fuissem;  13. 31.9  in  legend© ;  18.10.7  in 
medendo  quani  in  dicendo  (I.e.  14). 

in  medium  relinqnerc  (a  use  of  in  not  included  in  Notes  on 
Prepositions)  :  7.14.9  anne  autem  quasi  omnino  parvam  et  con- 
temptu  dignam  praeterierit  poenae  sumendae  causam  propter 
tuendam  laesi  hominis  auctoritatem,  an  magis  quasi  ei,  quam 
dicebat,  rei  non  necessariam  praetermiserit  ...  in  medium 
relinquo.  In  17.2. 11  Gellius  quotes  from  Quadrigarius  the 
words  nos  in  medium  relinquemus,  with  the  following  com- 
ment :  Vulgus  in  medio  dicit ;  nam  vitium  esse  istuc  putat.  In 
the  same  chapter  Gellius  calls  nc  .  .  .  quoque  and  cuinprimis 
obsolete,  but  he  uses  them  both    (see  above,  pages   29  and 

prae:S-^2)-Z  Unum  hoc  .  .  .  quod  prae  manibus  est,  ponemus 
(local  sense)  ;  19.8.6  si  .  .  .  liber  prae  manibus  est  (I.e.  29). 

subter:  10.15. 15  subter  arborem  felicem  (I.e. 31). 

Passing  now  to  the  conjunctions,  we  note  quando  in  temporal 
meaning.^""^     Some  fourteen  passages  occur  in  Gellius  in  which 

'*"  Similar  is  the  phrase  /;;  f>otestatem  esse,  which  an  unnamed  friend 
of  Gellius  defends  in  i.  7.  17  (cf.  §  4),  quoting  Cicero,  De  Imp.  Cn. 
Pompeii  33 ;  he  argues  that  this  is  no  solecism,  but  that  the  Greeks  use 
this  idiom,  et  Plautus  verborum  Latinorum  elegantissimus  in  Amphitru- 
one  <i8o>  dixit:  num  vero  mihi  in  mentem  fuit,  non,  ut  dici  solitum 
est,  in  mente.  In  §  18  he  adds :  multam  ....  apud  veteres  scriptores 
locutionum  talium  copiani  offendimus  atque  his  vulgo  adnotamcntis  in- 
spersimus  (a  very  significant  passage,  lighting  up  what  was  said  above, 
page  27,  note  loi,  about  Geliius's  'revival'  archaisms).  He  explains  the 
use  of  the  accusative  in  the  phrase  on  the  score  of  euphony  (§  19). 
For  the  idiom  in  mentem  est  see  Amph.  710;  Bacch.  160;  Ter.  Ad.  528 
(with  Ashmore's  note  ad  loc).  Palmer  (Amph.  710)  says:  "Sallust 
has  several  instances  of  this  idiom".  Clearly  these  phrases  were  ob- 
solete in  Geliius's  day;  hence  his  discussion  of  them  throws  some 
light  on   in   inedium  relinquo. 

'"See  Draeger,  2.582:  "Als  relativische  Temporalpartikel  kommt  es 
besonders  im  archaischen  Latein  vor  und  wird  von  da  ah  weniger 
gebraucht.     Es  bezeichnet  sehr  selten  eine  einmalige.  in  der  Kegel  und 


56  Archaism  in  Aulns  Gclliiis 

quaiido  seems  clearly  to  have  temporal  force.  Compare,  for 
examples  involving  the  indicative,  usually  with  iterative  force, 
1.20.3  Solidum  est,  quando  non  longitudines  modo  et  latitudines 
planas  numeri  linearum  efficiunt,  sed  etiam  .  .  .  altitudines  ('We 
have  a  solid  body,  whenever',  etc.)  ;  6.17.4  remotiora  ...  si 
discere  et  scire  debuero,  quando  usus  mihi  venerit,  tum  quaeram 
ex  te;  7.14.4  Quando  igitur  spes  .  .  .  magna  est  (note  just 
above,  in  same  paragraph,  Tertia  ratio  vindicandi  est, . .  .  cum 
poenitio  . . .  necessaria  est.  Iterative  clauses  with  cum  and 
the  indicative  are  common  in  Gellius.  Here  the  long  quando 
clause  is  resumed  by  quicquid  ita  delictum  est)  ;  9.9.1  Quando 
ex  poematis  Graecis  vertendae  . . .  sunt  insignes  sententiae,  non 
semper  aiunt  enitendum ;  11. 1.4  Quando  igitur  nunc  quoque  .  .  . 
multa  dicitur  vel  minima  vel  suprema,  observari  solet;  11.3.1 
Quando  .  .  .  otium  est  .  .  .  aut  spatiamur  aut  vectamur,  quaerere 
nonnumquam  aput  memet  ipsum  soleo;  17.6.6  quando  mulier 
dotem  marito  dabat,  tum,  quae  ex  suis  bonis  retinebat  neque  ad 
virum  tramittebat,  ea  recipere  dicebatur;  17.7.6  quando  (sc. 
est  and  erit)  per  sese  ponuntur,  habent  atque  retinent  tempus 
suum;  17.9.9  Quando  usus  venerat  .  .  .  conpHcabant ;  19.8.1 
quando  erat  a  magistris  .  .  .  otium,  ad  Frontonem  .  .  .  perge- 
bam  sermonibusque  eius  .  .  .  fruebar;  19.8.15  quando  forte  erit 
otium,  quaerite  (not  necessarily  iterative). 

For  instances  involving  the  subjunctive  see  Praef.  i  iucundi- 
ora  alia  reperiri  queunt,  ad  hoc  ut  liberis  quoque  meis  partae 
.  .  .  remissiones  essent,  quando  animus  .  .  .  indulged  potuisset ; 
Praef.  2  annotabam  .  .  .  ut  quando  usus  venisset  aut  .  .  .  oblivio 
tenuisset,  et  libri, . .  .  non  adessent .  . .  foret  (in  the  latter  in- 
stance, the  subjunctive  is  clearly  accounted  for  by  oratio 
obliqua;  in  the  former,  the  subjunctive  is  due  to  attraction); 
7- 1 3-5  Quaesitum  est,  quando  moriens  moreretur  .  .  .  et  quando 
surgens  surgeret .  . .  et  qui  artem  disceret,  quando  artifex  fieret  ? 
In  the  case  just  cited  there  is,  of  course,  no  iterative  force  and 
the  question  is  dependent  (we  have  oratio  obliqua,  then,  once 

in  der  alten  Zeit  immer  eine  wiederholte  oder  zu  unbestimmter  Zeit 
geschehende  Handlung.  Der  Modus  ist  iiberall  der  Indivativ".  Cf. 
also  Schmalz,  Lat.  Synt.  §  266;  Gildersleeve-Lodge,  §  580,  Note  3; 
Grandgent,  Vulgar  Latin,  §  82;  Lindsay,  Syntax  of  Plautus,  135. 


Archaism  in  .lulus  Gcllius  57 

more).  Gellius  is  not  fond  of  the  iterative  subjunctive.  He 
uses  it  but  once  with  ubi  (i 7.2.1  ubi  venisset  usus),  and  seldom 
with  d'U))i  or  cu))i.  The  causal  quando  is  not  common.  Gellius 
prefers  quia,  quod,  and  especially  quoniam. 

Schmalz,  566  (§326),  recognizes  no  example  of  quoniam 
with  temporal  force  outside  of  Plautus  and  Terence.^*-  But  it 
certainly  seems  to  have  temporal  force  in  Gellius  6.5.4^"'^  Polus 
unice  amatum  filium  morte  amisit.  Eum  luctum  quoniam  satis 
visus  est  eluxisse,  rediit  ad  quaestum  artis.'""*  Quoniam  seems 
to  be  temporal,  with  iterative  force,  in  15.27.5  Propterea  cen- 
turiata  in  campo  Martio  haberi  exercitumque  imperari  praesidii 
causa  solitum,  quoniam  populus  esset  in  suflFragiis  ferendis  oc- 
cupatus.^*^ 

With  reference  to  causal  cjnn/®"  in  Draeger  2.680  we  find  the 
following:  "Seit  der  klassischen  Zeit  ist  der  Konjunktiv  der 
allein  gebrauchliche  Modus."  Similarly  Schmalz,  page  565 : 
"  Das  kausale,  adversative  und  konzessive  quoni  wird  seit  der 
klassichen  Zeit  ausschliesslich  mit  dem  Konjunktiv  konstru- 
iert". 

The  causal  force,  however,  seems  clear  in  certain  passages 
from  Gellius,  although  the  nuance  may  be  such  that  in  some  of 
the  instances  the  temporal  force  might  be  admitted.  See  2.29.1 
Aesopus  ille  e  Phrygia  fabulator  haut  inmerito  sapiens  existi- 
matus  est,  cum,  quae  utilia  monitu  suasuque  erant  non  severe 
neque  imperiose  praccepit  et  censnit,  ut  philosophis  mos  est,  sed 
festivos  delectabilesque  apologos  commentus,  res  salubriter  ac 

"^  Compare  Sonnenscheiii  on  Rud.  67:  Gray  on  .\sin.  350;  Lorenz 
and  Brix-Xiemeyer'  on  Mil.  129;  Brix-Xiemeyer'  on  Trin.  14. 

"*  But   see   Apul.   Ap.    §    17:    ipse  ....  scriptum   reliquit tris 

servos  solos  ex  urbe  duxisse,  quoniam  ad  villam  publicam  venerat. 

"*Cf.  Gildersleeve-Lodge,  580,  X.  3.  In  earlier  editions  Schmalz  too 
saw  temporal  force  here. 

***  Compare  Weiss's  translation :  "Deshalb  pflegten  die  Centuriat- 
Comitien  auf  Marsfelde  abgehalten  und  das  (waffenfahige")  Volk  zur 
Besitzung  des  Wahlplatzes  aufgefordert  zu  werden  des  Schutzes  und 
der  Sicherheit  halber,  so  lange  als  das  \'olk  beim  Stimm  abgeben  be- 
schaftigt  war." 

'^^  See  Lindsay,  Syntax  of  Plautus.  120;  Bennett,  Syntax  of  Early 
Latin,  i.  133:  Holtze,  2.125. 


58  ArcJmism  in  Aulus  GelHus 

prospicienter  animadversas  in  mentes  animosque  hominum  cum 
audiendi  quadam  inlecebra  induit;  5. 10.12  Sed  maius  mihi  in 
ista  victoria  prolubium  est,  cum  te  non  in  causa  tantum,  sed  in 
argumento  quoque  isto  vinco;  6.3.25  non  culpa  tantum  vacat, 
sed  dignus  quoque  laude  admirationeque  est,  cum  et  ingenue 
ac  religiose  dicere  visus  est  contra  Rodienses,  quod  sentiebat 
et  .  .  . ;  6.2.7  ecquale  putat  cor  habere  me  et  quam  stultum 
esse  me  credit,  cum  id  mihi  persuadere  vult?  1 1.8.4  Ea  cum 
legisset  M.  Cato  "Ne  tu"  inquit  "Aule,  nimium  nugator  es, 
cum  maluisti  culpam  deprecari  quam  culpa  vacare" ;  12. 12.4 
"dKoivovor;Toi"  inquit  "homines  estis  cum  ignoratis  prudentis 
et  cauti  patrisfamilias  esse,  quod  emere  velit,  empturum  sese 
negare  propter  competitores  emptionis.  In  all  these  cases,  save 
2.29.1,  the  tense  used  by  Gellius  in  the  main  clause  makes  it 
very  difficult  to  explain  the  c/< ///-clauses  as  other  than  causal. 

In  Gellius  there  are  several  instances  of  the  indicative  in  de- 
pendent questions.  The  indicative  in  such  questions  preceded 
the  subjunctive.^*^  In  general,  the  principle  of  para- 
taxis^®* accounts  for  the  use  of  the  indicative  mood  in  such 
questions,  especially  in  conjunction  with  the  imperative.  In 
Plautus  the  indicative  in  this  type  of  question  is  as  common  as 
the  subjunctive.^*''  Already  in  Gellius's  time  the  subjunctive 
was  fast  losing  ground,  so  that  when  the  Latin  language  finally 
broke  up  into  the  Romance  tongues  the  use  of  the  subjunctive 
was  greatly  restricted. ^^°  We  see  this  tendency  in  Apule- 
ius  :^^^  compare  e.  g.  Ap.  Met.  2.22  nee  satis  quisquam  definire 
poterit  quantas  latebras  .  .  .  comminiscuntur ;  Tertullian,  Ux. 

"'  See  e.  g.  Bennett,  Syntax  of  Early  Latin,  1.120. 

"*  See  e.  g.  Knapp's  Vergil,  Index,  under  Moods  1.4,  with  notes  on 
the  passages  there  cited;  Frobenius,  §  186;  Draeger,  2.460  ff. ;  Gilder- 
sleeve-Lodge,  467,  N.  i ;  Schmalz,  516. 

"°  See  Lindsay,  Syntax  of  Plautus,  66. 

""See  Grandgent,  Vulgar  Latin,  §  117  (p.  53):  "In  conditions  not 
contrary  to  fact,  in  indirect  discourse  and  indirect  questions,  in  de- 
pendent clauses  that  are  not  adversative  nor  dubitative,  the  indicative 
was  often  substituted  for  the  subjunctive"  (see  the  references  given  by 
Grandgent)  ;  Schmalz,  517.  Here  again  the  plebeian  and  the  archaic 
are  at  one :  see  above,  pages  9-10. 

"'  Hoppe,  72. 


Archaism  in  .luliis  Gclliiis  59 

1.8  vide,  quam  ex  aequo  habetur  qui  .  .  .  benefecerit;  Car. 
Chr.3  quid  tanti  fuit  edoce.^^- 

Coming  now  to  Gellius  himself,  let  us  compare  19.8.6  prop- 
terea  peto  ut,  si  Gai  Caesaris  liber  prae  manibus  est,  promi 
iubeas,  ut  quam  confidenter  hoc  indicat  aestimari  a  te  possit; 
2.21.4  Quin  .  .  .  vos  opici  dicitis  mihi,  quare,  quod  a/xa^av 
Graeci  vocant,  nos  septentriones  vocaimis ;'^^^  9.2.5  Quaeso 
autem  te  .  .  .  quibus  nos  uti  posse  argumentis  existimas  ;^®* 
18.7.2  Quaeso  te,  magister,  dicas  mihi,  mini  erravi,  quod,  cum 
vellem  S77/x77yopt'as  Latine  dicere,  contiones  dixi?Here,  appar- 
ently, Gellius  regards  num  erravi  as  independent,  but  in  20.1.8 
we  have  Die  enim,  quaeso,  die.  .  .an.  .  .existumes.  In  19.8.6 
quae  ratio  est  quamobrem  C.  Caesar  vel  dictam  esse  a  veteribus 
vel  dicendam  a  nobis  non  putat,  it  may  be  said  that  quamobrem 
is  treated  as  a  relative.  Since  the  indicative  in  indirect  questions 
is  common  in  late  Latin,  it  would  not  be  safe  to  attribute  its 
use  by  Gellius  to  intentional  archaism.  We  have  seen  that  it 
is  frequent  in  Plautus  and  the  early  writers  in  general.  We 
have  also  seen  that  it  grows  more  and  more  frequent  from 
Gellius's  time  to  the  beginnings  of  the  Romance  languages. ^^' 
In  any  case,  however,  we  have  either  a  reversion  to  type  or  a 
persistence  of  type,  so  that  the  matter  properly  finds  place  in 
this  paper. 

A  matter  more  or  less  akin  to  that  just  discussed,  though 
not  involving  the  use  of  moods,  may  be  noted  here,  utrum 
.  .  .  ne  .  .  .  an,  found  in  2.2.7  ^"<^'  7-^-3'  is  clearly  an  archa- 
ism.^*'    The  passages  run  as  follows:  "Absque  praeiudicio" 

'"  It  may  be  noted  that  the  indicative  in  these  two  instances  from 
Tertullian  occurs  in  connection  with  the  imperative ;  it  is  precisely  in 
connection  with  the  imperative  that  the  question  could  most  easily 
remain  more  or  less  independent  (paratactic)  ;  precisely  in  connec- 
tion with  the  imperative,  too,  occur  most  of  the  examples  of  the 
(apparent)  dependent  question  in  the  indicative  in  early  Latin.  See 
Knapp,  A.  J.  P.,  32.33,  in  a  review  of  Bennett's  Syntax  of  Early  Latin, 
Volume  I ;  Gildersleeve-Lodge,  467,  X.  3. 

'"  Since  the  main  clauses  are  logically  imperative  in  force,  see  above, 
note  192. 

"'  See  above,  note  192. 

'"On  the  subject  in  general  see  Schmalz,  516-517. 

'"*  See  Lindsay,  Syntax  of   Plautus,    119;   Bennett,   Syntax  of  Early 


6o  Archaism  in  Aulus  Gellius 

inquit  Taurus,  "tu  interea  sede,  dum  inspicimus  quaerimusque,, 
utrum  conveniat  tene  potius  sedere,  qui  pater  es,  an  filiuni,  qui 
magistratus  est;  Lepide  igitur  agitari  potest,  utrum  videri 
continentiorem  par  sit  Publiumne  Africanum  Superiorem 
...  an  regem  Alexandrum  .  .  ."  In  the  former  passage  we 
have  another  archaism  in  absque:  see  Drisler  Studies,  167. 
Cf.  Plautus  Most.  681 ;  Stich.  703;  Bacch.  500-501,  Trin.  306; 
Pseud.  709;  Mil.  345;  Rud.  104;  Terence  Eun.  721 ;  Adel.  382. 
So  far  as  I  have  noticed,  Professor  Bennett  does  not,  in  his 
Syntax  of  Early  Latin:  Volume  i,  discuss  the  occur- 
rences of  the  indicative  in  subordinate  clauses  in  the  oratio 
obliqua  in  early  Latin.^^^  As  will  be  seen  from  the  references 
given  in  note  197  below,  the  usage  does  occur  in  early  Latin,  and 
is  characteristic  of  late  and  plebeian  Latin.  In  the  examples 
cited  below,  one  would  expect  the  subjunctive.  But  even  in 
the  Latin  of  the  best  period  instances  of  the  indicative  occur^^^ 
which  are  almost  as  difficult  to  account  for.  Whether  the  sub- 
junctive or  the  indicative  shall  be  used  seems  to  depend  upon 
some  subtle  feeling  which  the  writer  may  have  at  the  moment, 
which  in  his  own  mind  seems  to  separate  the  clause  from  the 
oratio  obliqua,  by  way  of  parenthetical  remark,  or  for  special 
emphasis.  As  in  the  case  of  dependent  questions,  the  occur- 
rences of  the  indicative  in  Gellius  may  be  due  either  to  the 
(less  exact)  usage  of  his  times  or  to  intentional  archaism. ^^^ 


Latin,  1.333  (§§  9,  u;  Bennett's  citations  are  not  exhaustive)  ;  Madvig, 
Latin  Grammar,  §  452.1;  Brix-Niemeyer',  Hallidie,  and  Lindsay  on 
Capt.  268;  Wagner  on  Aul.  427;  Lorenz  on  Pseud.  688.  The  matter 
discussed  above  must  not  be  confused  with  quite  different  expressions 
in  Cicero,  in  which  after  a  clause  beginning  with  utrum  (the  neuter 
pronoun)  there  is  a  pause,  and  a  fresh  start  is  made  with  -;;e  .  ...  an 
clauses:  see  Reid  on  Cic.  Acad.  2.71. 

'"For  this  use  see  Holtze,  2.  116-117  (§  4d)  :  Draeger,  2.444.;  Lind- 
say, Syntax  of  Plautus,  pages  65  f . ;  Elmer  on  Terence  Phormio,  9,17; 
Grandgent,  §  117;  Gorges,  43-45. 

"'  Draeger,  2.442-443. 

'^'  Apuleius  has  similar  constructions :  for  example,  see  Met.  2.21 
ignoras  Thessaliae  te  consistere,  ubi  sagae  mulieres  ....  demorsitant; 
Met.  3.  6  non  tantum  impunem  me,  verum  etiam  laudabilem  publice 
credebam  fore  qui  ...  .  apud  meos  semper  innocentiam  commodis 
cunctis  antetuleram. 


Archaism  in  Aulns  GcJlius  6l 

A  few  examples  from  Gellius  will  suffice  by  way  of  illustration. 
Compare  1.12.10-11  De  more  autem  rituque  capiundae  virginis 
litterae  quidem  antiquiores  non  extant,  nisi  quae  capta  prima 
est  a  Numa  rege  esse  captam.  Sed  Papiam  legem  invenimus, 
qua  cavetur,  ut  pontificis  maximi  arbitratu  virgines  e  populo 
viginti  legantur  sortitioque  in  contione  ex  eo  numero  fiat  et, 
cuius  virginis  ducta  crit,  ut  eam  pontifex  maximus  capiat  .  .  .; 
5.18.6  historias  quidem  esse  aiunt  rerum  gestarum  vel  exposi- 
tionem  .  .  .  annales  vero  esse,  cum  res  gestae  .  .  .  componuntur; 
6.1.2-4  Nam  et  C.  Oppius  et  lulius  Hyginus  aliique.  .  .tradunt 
.  .  .  neque  multis  diebus,  postquam  ille  anguis  in  lecto  visus 
est,  mulierem  coepisse  .  .  . ;  6.3.19  Quippe  recte  et  utiliter  .  .  . 
praecipitur  indices  de  capite  alieno  deque  causa  ad  sese  non 
pertinenti  cognituros,  ex  qua  praeter  officium  .  .  .  nihil  .  .  . 
redundaturum  est,  conciliandos  esse  .  . .  existimationi  saluti- 
que  eius,  qui  apud  eos  accusatus  est  (possibly  the  indicative 
here  and  in  the  following  example  is  an  echo  from  Cato :  the 
whole  chapter  deals  with  a  speech  of  Cato)  ;  6.3.22  Sed  quod 
ait  confessum  Catonem  noluisse  Rodiensis  ita  depugnari  ut 
depugnatum  est;  5.1  i.i  Existimant  quidam  etiam  illud  Biantis^ 
.  .  .  responsum  consimile  esse  atque  est  Protagorion  illud ; 
6.17.3  Quis  adeo  tarn  linguae  Latinae  ignarus  est,  quin  sciat 
eum  dici  obnoxium,  cui  quid  ab  eo,  cui  esse  obnoxius  dicitur, 
incommodari  .  .  . ;  10.2.2  Sed  et  divo  Augusto  imperante,  qui 
temporum  eius  historiam  scripserunt,  ancillam ...  in  agro 
Laurente  peperisse  .  .  .  dicunt  .  .  .  matrem  .  .  .  non  multo, 
postquam  peperit,  mortuam .  .  . ;  14.1.2  eaque  fuerunt  ad 
banc  ferme  sententiam :  disciplinam  istam  Chaldaeorum  tantae 
vetustatis  non  esse,  quantae  videri  i-oluiif,  neque  eos  principes 
eius  auctoresque  esse,  quos  ipsi  ferant  (note  the  shift  in 
moods,  voliint  .  .  .  ferant)  ;  14. 1.20  declarari  .  .  .  oportere 
dicebat  .  .  .  quales  .  .  .  homines  gignerentur  .  .  .  quinam 
olim  futuri  essent  .  .  .  ut  .  .  .  stellae  istae  praemonstrare 
debuerint,  qualis  qualique  fato  futurus  sit,  quisquis  hodie 
flatus  est. 

Gellius  is  fond  of  repeating  atque,  a  trick  of  style  apparently 
borrowed  from  Cato.-"°     For  examples  see  1.23.  i  cum  nuilta 

"*  See  Draeger,  2.54;  Schmalz,  496   (§  242);  Minton  Warren.  P.  A. 


y/ 


62  Archaism  in  Aulits  Gcllius 

quidem  venustate  atque  luce  atque  munditia  verborum ;  2.2.9  ^^ 
publicis  locis  atque  muneribus  atque  actionibus ;  2.8.1  inperfecte 
atque  praepostere  atque  inscite ;  6.3.52  distincte  nimis  atque 
compte  atque  modulate;  6.1 9.1  Fulcrum  atque  liberale  atque 
magnanimum  factum;  10.3. 13  impense  atque  acriter  atque  in- 
flammanter;  12. 1.9  filium  proprii  atque  consueti  atque  cogniti 
sanguinis  alimonia  privare;  17.1.1  parum  integre  atque  in- 
proprie  atque  inconsiderate  locutum.^°^ 

sed  enim  occurs  e.  g.  in  Praef.  18;  1.7.18  sed  enim  praeter 
Plautum  .  . .  multam  . . .  copiam  offendimus  . .  .  ;  2.6.10;  17. 1.3 
(see  Apul.  Met.  1.24).  This  may  be  an  archaism.  Draeger 
333.2c,  says :  "Zuerst  Cato  Orat.  p.  Rhod.  Dann  Cic.  p.  Gael. 
24,60  .  .  .  Mehr  wird  aus  Cicero  nicht  angefiihrt,  nichts  aus 
Caesar,  Sallust  und  Livius ;  mehr  schon  aus  den  Augusteischen 
Dichtern  .  . .  Im  silbernen  Zeitalter  scheint  es  zu  fehlen,  sicher 
bei  Tacitus,  dann  kommt  es  wieder  zum  Vorschein".  P.  Langen 
(Beitrage  zur  Kritik  und  Erklarung  des  Plautus,  page  263)  : 
"ob  Plautus  auch  sed  enim  gesagt  habe,  ist  zweifelhaft,  iiber- 
liefert  ist  kein  Beispiel  der  Art".  Lindsay  (Syntax  of  Plautus, 
page  97)  writes:  "but  sed  enim  seems  not  to  occur  (in  Bacch. 
1080  the  MSS  offer  et  enim  ...)",  Leo,  it  should  be  noted, 
reads  there  sed  enim,  Goetz-Schoell  at  enim.  Schmalz,  508, 
declares  that  sed  enim  "schon  vor  Cato .  .  .  gerne .  . .  von  den 
aug.  Dichtern  und  den  Archaisten,  z.  B.  Pronto,  Gellius  ge- 
braucht  wird". 

Twice  after  a  temporal  clause  Gellius  introduces  what  is 
logically  the  main  clause  with  a  copulative  conjunction  {atque, 
et).^°-    According  to  Schmalz  this  illogical  form  of  parataxis  is 

P.  A.,  25.  xliv  (1894).  Elmer,  in  his  dissertation  on  Que,  et,  atque  in 
the  Inscriptions  of  the  Republic,  in  Terence  and  in  Cato  (see  A.  J.  P., 
8),  did  not  notice  Cato's  fondness  for  repeated  atque. 

*°^  Compare  Pronto  36  (Naber)  :  Uni  M.  Porcio  me  dedicavi  atque 
despondi  atque  delegavi.  Hoc  etiam  ipsum  atque  unde  putas?  ex  ipso 
furore.  Lodge,  Lexicon  Plautinum,  s.  v.  Atque,  17,  gives  examples  of 
varying  combinations  into  which  atque  enters  twice,  such  as  atque  .  .  . 
atque;  atque  .  . .  atque . . . -que;  atque  . . . -que  et .  .  .  atque;  et .  .  .  atque 
....  atque. 

°"  For  this  use  in  Plautus  see  Lodge,  Lexicon  Plautinum,  s.  v.  Atque, 
16  (page  179). 


Archaism  in  Aldus  Gellius  63 

confined  to  two  authors  only,  Plautus  and  Gellius;  see 
497  (§  244).  Compare  2.29.8  Haec  tihi  ille  dixit  et  discessit; 
17.20.4  Haec  verba  nbi  lecta  sunt  atque  ibi  Taurus  mihi  .  .  . 
inquit.  It  should  be  noted  that  2.29  is  a  perfect  mine  of  ar- 
chaisms, such  as  cum  causal  with  indicative,  fervit,  crastini,  luci, 
etc.,  etc.^"'  The  Plautine  examples  of  the  special  phenomenon 
under  discussion  are  Epid.  217  (Schmalz  wrongly  cites  as  209) 
Quom  ad  portam  venio  atque  ego  illam  illi  video  praestolarier ; 
Bacch.  278  forte  ut  adsedi  in  stega,  dum  circumspecto,  atque 
ego  lembum  conspicor;  Most.  1050  Quoniam  convocavi,  atque 
illi  me  ex  senatu  segregant ;  Poen.  649  Nescimus  nos  quidem 
istum  qui  siet;  Nisi  dudum  mane  ut  ad  portum  processimus, 
Atque  istum  e  navi  exeuntem  oneraria  Videmus;  Merc.  256 
Postquam  id  quod  volui  transegi,  atque  ego  conspicor  Navem 
ex  Rhodo  quast  heri  advectus  filius. 

Finally,  in  2.29,  we  have  convincing  evidence  of  Gellius's 
conscious  imitation  of  the  ancients,  whom  he  so  profoundly 
reverenced.  In  his  rendering  of  Aesop's  fable,  we  have  numer- 
ous examples  of  archaisms  of  form  and  of  syntax,-"*  which, 
without  doubt,  are  taken  from  the  Latin  version  which  Gellius 
was  following.  But  unmistakable  evidence  that  Gellius's  work 
is,  in  part,  a  loose  paraphrase  of  one  of  the  Satires  of  Ennius,^"' 
and,  in  part,  a  more  or  less  faithful  rendering  of  parts  of  verses, 
or  even  of  whole  verses,  of  his  Latin  original,  is  found  in  the 
bits  of  trochaic  lines  which  characterize  this  fable-°^  as  given 
us  by  Gellius. 

Trochaic  rhythm  is  natural  enough  to  Latin,  but  here  we 
have  no  accidental  measures  due  to  the  nature  of  the  language. 
By  way  of  contrast  it  is  suggestive  to  compare  the  story  of 
the  lark,  2.29,  with  the  story  of  Arion,  16.19.  So  far  as  I  have 
been  able  to  discover,  the  striking  archaic  and  metrical  ele- 
ments which  are  so  remarkable  in  the  former  are  lacking  in  the 

*"  See  Knapp,  Drisler  Studies.  143-144  (for  archaisms  of  form), 
and,  for  archaisms  of  synta.x,  above,  page  57.  The  next  paragraph  of 
this  page  may  also  be  compared  here. 

"^  See  above,  note  203. 

"Cf.  §  20. 

"*  See  Vahlen's  Ennius'  (1903),  ccxxii-ccxxiii,  and  Knapp,  A.  J.  P., 
32.28. 


64  Archaism  in  Aulus  Gellius 

latter.  Apparently,  Gellius  is  here  translating  from  Herodotus, 
and  so  is  himself  responsible  for  the  Latin.  There  was  no  in- 
termediary archaic  Latin  version  from  which  to  borrow.  There 
seem  to  be  no  reminiscences  of  Ovid's  rendering  (Fasti, 
2.79-1 18).  Ovid,  it  may  be  noted,  is  never  mentioned  in  the 
Noctes  Atticae  (compare  above,  page  20). 

To  the  trochaic  rhythms  which  have  already  been  noted  by 
Vahlen-°'^  and  by  Knapp,-°^  in  2.29,  the  following,  not  in  all 
cases,  to  be  sure,  very  musical,  should  be  added :  appetat  messis 
pullis  iam  iam  plumantibus ;  flavescentibus  pullis ;  ipsa  iret 
cibum  pullis ;  postea  segetum  illarum ;  amici  isti  magnam  par- 
tem inquit ;  temperi  ad  metendum ;  afferes  primo  luci. 

^'  Ennius,  ccxxii. 
*"  A.  J.  P.,  32.30-31. 


SELECTED  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  INDEX^ 

Abbott.  F.  F.  The  Use  of  Repetition  in  Latin  to  Secure  Emphasis, 
Intensity,  and  Distinctness  of  Impression,  Studies  in  Classical  Phil- 
ology, 3.67-87   (1900,  Chicago). 

A.  J.  P.     American  Journal  of  Philology. 

Archiv.  Archiv  fiir  lateinische  Lexicographic  und  Grammatik. 

Bennett,  Charles  E.  Syntax  of  Early  Latin,  Vol.  I.  The  Verb  (Bos- 
ton, 1910). 

Bernhardy,  Gottfried  von.     Romische  Litteratur   (Halle,  1872). 

Brock,  M.  Dorothy.  Studies  in  Fronto  and  His  Age  (Cambridge, 
1911). 

Biicheler,  Franz.    Grundriss  der  lateinischen  Deklination  (Bonn,  1879). 

Cooper,  Frederic  Taber.  Word  Formation  in  the  Roman  Sermo 
Plebeius  (New  York,  1895). 

Desertine,  A.  H.  J.  V.  M.  De  Apulei  Studiis  Plautinis  (Neomagi, 
1898). 

Draeger,  A.     Historische    Syntax   der   lateinischen    Sprache.      (2   vols. 

Leipzig,  1878-1881). 
Duff,  J.  W.    A  Literary  History  of  Rome  (London  and  Leipzig,  1909). 
Ellis,  Robinson.     Commentary  on  Catullus'  (Oxford,  1906). 
Frobenius,  Rudolf.    Die  Syntax  des  Ennius  (Nordlingen,  1910). 
Georges,    K.    E.      Lateinisch-Deutsches    Hand-Worterbuch'     (Leipzig, 

1899)- 
Gildersleeve,  Basil,  and  Lodge,  Gonzales.    Latin  Grammar  (New  York; 

1900). 
Gorges,  O.     De  Quibusdam  Sermonis  Gelliani  Proprietatibus  Observa- 

tiones  (Halle,  1882). 
Grandgent,  C.  H.    An  Introduction  to  Vulgar  Latin   (Boston,  1907)- 
Gronovius,  J.     Aulus  Gellius   (Lyons.   1706). 
Haupt,  Moritz.     Opuscula  (Leipzig.  1875-1876). 
Helm,  Rudolphus.     Apulei  Opera  quae  supersunt  (Leipzig,  1907). 
Hertz,  M.   (Vind.  Gell.  Alt.).     Vindiciae   Gellianae  Alterae    (Leipzig, 

1873). 

A.  Gellii  Noctes  Atticae  (2  vols.  Berhn.  1885). 

Opuscula  Gelliana   (Berlin,  1886). 
Hildebrandt,  G.  F.     Apulei  Metamorphoses   (Leipzig,  1862). 
Holtze,    F.    Guilelmus.      Syntaxis    Priscorum    Scriptorum    Latinorum 

(Leipzig,  1861). 
Hoppe,  H.    Syntax  und  Stil  des  Tertullian  (Leipzig,  1903). 
Hosius,  Carolus.     A.  Gellii  Noctes  Atticae   (Leipzig,  1903). 
Knapp.  Charles.     Archaism  in  Aulus   Gellius    (in  Classical   Studies   in 

Honour  of  Henry  Drisler,  New  York,  1894)- 

Corrections  and  Additions  to  Lewis  and  Short  in  Connection  with 

Aulus  Gellius,  A.  J.  P.  14-  216-225. 
1  See  note  .3. 


66  Selected  Bibliographical  Index 

Notes  on  the  Prepositions  in  Gellius,  T.  A.  P.  A.  25  (1894).  1-33. 

Stories  from  Aulus  Gellius  (New  York,  1895). 

The  Originahty  of  Latin  Literature,  The  Classical  Journal,  3.  251-260, 

299-307. 

Vahlen's  Ennius,  A.  J.  P.  32.   1-35. 
Kretschmann,     Henricus.       De     Latinitate     L.     Apulei     Madaurensis 

(Konigsberg,  1865). 
Kretschmer,  J.     De  A.  Gellii  Fontibus  (Posen,  i860). 
Kiibler,   Bernhard.     Die   lateinische   Sprache   auf   africane   Inschriften 

(in  Archiv  8  [1893]). 
Kiihner,   Raphael.     Ausfiihrliche   Grammatik   der   lateinischen   Sprache 

(Hanover,  1 877- 1879 )  ;  second  edition  (2  vols.  Hanover,  1912). 
Landgraf.     See  Stolz,  Landgraf. 
Langen,  P.     Beitrage  zur  Kritik  und  Erklarung  des  Plautus  (Leipzig, 

1880). 
Leky,   Maximilian.     De   Syntaxi  Apuleiana   (Bonn,   1908). 
Lindsay,  W.  M.     The  Latin  Language    (Oxford,   1894). 

Syntax  of  Plautus  (Oxford,  1907). 
Lodge,  Gonzalez.     Lexicon  Plautinum  (Leipzig,  1901-1911). 
Lodge,  Henry  Cabot.    Shakespeare's  Americanisms  (Harpers  Monthly, 

January,  1885). 
Mackail,  J.  W.     Latin  Literature  (New  York,  1907). 
Madvig,  J.  N.    Latin  Grammar,  revised  by  Thomas  A.  Thacher  (Bos- 
ton, 1888). 
Mohl,  F.  G.    Introduction  a  la  Chronologic  du  Latin  Vulgaire  (Paris), 

1899). 
Monceaux,   Paul.     Histoire   litteraire   de   I'Afrique   chretienne    (Paris, 

1901-190S). 
Naber,  S.  A.  M.    Cornelii  Frontonis  et  M.    Aurelii  Imperatoris  Episto- 

lae   (Leipzig,  1867). 
Nagelsbach,  K.   F.     Lateinische    Stilistik    fiir    Deutsche'     (Niirnberg, 

1888). 
Naudet,  Joseph.     M.  Accii  Plauti  Comoediae,  Lemaire  edition   (Paris, 

1830).     See  Bibliotheca  Classica  Latina,  Vols.  68-71. 
Nettleship,  Henry.    Lectures  and  Essays  (First  Series,  Oxford,  1889). 

Lectures  and  Essays   (Second  Series,  Oxford,  1895). 

Contributions  to  Latin  Lexicography  (Oxford,  1889). 
Neue-Wagener  =  Neue,  C.  F.,  and  Wagener,  C.  von.    Formenlehre  der 

lateinischen  Sprache'  (2  vols.  Berlin,  1892-1902). 
Norden,  E.     Die  antike  Kunstprosa   (Leipzig,  1898). 
Olcott,  George.     Studies  in  the  Word  Formation  of  the  Latin  Inscrip- 
tions (Rome,  1898). 
Piechotta,  James.  Curae  Apuleiamae  (Breslau,  1872). 
Priebe,  C.     De  Frontone  imitationem  prisci  sermonis  latini  adfectante 

(Settin,  1885). 


Selected  Bibliographical  Index  67 

Purser,  Louis  C.    The  Story  of  Cupid  and  Psyche  as  Related  by  Apu- 

leius    (London,   1910). 
Reisig-Haase  =  Reisig,  Christian  Karl,  and  Haase,  Frederich.  Vorlesun- 

gen   iiber  latcinische  Sprachwissenschaft.     Revised  by  Hagen,  Heer- 

degen.   Schmalz   and  Landgraf    (2  vols.   Berlin,   1881-1890). 
Ribbeck,   Otto.     Tragicorum   Romanorum   Fragmenta'    (Leipzig,   1897- 

1898). 
Riese,  F.  A.    Varro,  M.  Terentius,  Saturarum  Menippearum  Reliquiae 

(Leipzig,  1865). 
Roby,  Henry  J.     Grammar  of  the  Latin  Language   from  Plautus  to 

Suetonius   (London^  Volume  i,  1887,  Volume  2,  1874). 
Schmalz.     See  Stolz,  Schmalz. 

Sellar,  W.  Y.    The  Roman  Poets  of  the  Augustan  Age  (Oxford,  1892). 
Steele,   R.   B.     Archaisms   Noted  by   Servius   in   the   Commentary  on 

Vergil,  American  Journal  of  Philology,  15   (1894).     164-193. 
Stolz.    See  Stolz,  Schmalz. 
Stolz,  Landgraf  =  Stolz,  Friedrich,  and  Landgraf,  Gustav.    Historische 

Grammatik  der  lateinischen  Sprache   (vols,   i   and  3.     Leipzig,  1894, 

1903). 

Stolz,  Friedrich,  Schmalz,  J.  H.  Lateinische  Grammatik  und  Stilistik*, 
in  Iwan  v.  Miiller's  Handbuch  der  klassischen  Alterumswissen- 
schaft,  Volume  2  (Munich,  1910). 

Teuffel-Schwabe-Warr.  A  History  of  Roman  Literature,  2  vols.  (Lon- 
don, 1900). 

Thesaurus.     Thesaurus  Linguae  Latinae   (Leipzig,   1900-). 

Thomas,  P.    Apuleius,  De  Philosophia  Libri  (Leipzig,  1908). 

T.  A.  P.  A.    Transactions  of  the  American  Philological  Association. 

Vahlen,  Johannes.     Ennianae   Poesis   Reliquiae*   (Leipzig,   1903). 

Vogel,  Theodor.  De  A.  Gellii  vita,  studiis,  scriptis  narratio  et  iudicium 
(Zittau,  i860), 

Weiss,  Fritz.    Die  Attischen  Nachte  des  Aulus  Gellius  (2  vols.  Leipzig. 

1875). 
Wolfflin,   Eduard.     Lateinische  und  romanische  Comparation    (Erlan- 
gen,  1879). 
Bemerkungen  iiber  des  Vulgarlatein.  Philologus,  34.149. 


VITA. 

I,  Walter  Eugene  Foster,  was  bom  in  Westmoreland,  New- 
Hampshire,  May  13,  1870.  I  prepared  for  college  at  Gushing 
Academy,  Ashburnham,  Mass.,  from  which  I  was  graduated 
in  189 1.  After  four  years  of  teaching,  I  entered  Williams 
College,  from  which  I  received  the  degree  of  B.A.  in  1899. 
My  graduate  work  has  been  done  at  Columbia  and  Cornell 
Universities. 

I  have  held  the  following  educational  positions :  principal 
of  the  Pratt  High  School,  Essex,  Conn. ;  teacher  in,  and  later 
principal  of,  the  Williamstown  High  School,  Williamstown, 
Mass.;  teacher  of  Latin  in  the  Morris  High  School,  New 
York  City.  At  the  present  time  I  am  head  of  the  department 
of  Latin  in  the  Stuyvesant  High  School,  New  York  City. 

To  Professors  James  C.  Egbert  and  Nelson  G.  McCrea 
I  wish  to  express  my  thanks  for  their  unfailing  kindness  and 
consideration.  Especially  do  I  wish  to  thank  Professor  Charles 
Knapp,  to  whose  suggestion  this  dissertation  is  due,  and  to 
whose  kindly  interest  and  wide  scholarship  I  have  never  ap- 
pealed in  vain. 


RETURN     CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

TO       r       202  Ma i n  Library 
LOAN  PERIOD  I    1^ 


ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 


DEC0419BA 


p^fFAQjTAMPED  BELOW      . 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
FORM  NO.  DD6,  60m,  1  /83  BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


UC.  BERKELEY LIBRARIE 


C0DM0T7343 


